Your Feedback

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

Judith was questioning why they let her out and she got real upset and offensive asking the other person questions, I'm a African American I did not like her response when she was asking questions

I am a composer-pianist from Massachusetts. I would like to make my new composition "For Those Not Here" and others available for use my CPC Producers. Please advise.

Here is a listening link to the work: https://open.spotify.com/track/2OTwmI30NkxySWsIDlFZpV?si=06f81dfe62ba481a

I would be delighted to send the full CD, if appropriate, or send other links digitally if preferred.

Dan Kennedy Amherst, MA www.dankennedy.us

Libtards have ruined PBS....Great Job!!! Misinfo on......

I am a regular listener and watcher of both programs and I know you are replacing Judy Woodruff on the News Hour. I am a senior and many of my friends also watch and listen but because we are older we have trouble hearing people who speak fast like Amna Nawaz, Lisa Des Jardins, and Yamiche Alcindor. Young people do not get the news from TV but older ones do so they are the major portion of your audience. Also I have noticed that many of your guests on both programs also speak very fast. I suggest you do not replace Judy with either of these three mentioned but rather with Stephanie Sy, Jeff Bennett, John Yang. William Brangham, and/or Jeffrey Brown. If the programs continue to have people who speak rapidly and not clearly I will reconsider my yearly donation to PBS so please speak to them.

The closed captioning on the PBS News Hour is consistently not synced with the audio. It really makes it difficult for those of us who are hard of hearing.

First, I think it’s strange that you’re a *private* corporation created and funded by government and managing government resources. Shouldn’t you be public under those circumstances? The public deserves to have more insight and influence into what we’re funding and de facto authorizing. Why is this organization not public?

Second, I think people need more help understanding what it is you actually do. You’re apparently using taxpayer funding to help stations by providing ‘grants, seed money, and operating support’, and you make the comment that you “make “major investments in national content”, but anytime someone has a question or criticism, your standard response is ‘we don’t have any influence or input to programs or content’. I’m trying to understand how this is possible and what your function actually is. Are you purely processing disbursements from government direction without any strategy or analysis on your part? If so, who is providing the direction? And do we really need a private corporation to do that? Where’s the taxpayer benefit? If you do have some true managerial/ developmental/ operational oversight, how is it you give the same form letter response to everyone saying you don’t? If you keep getting comments talking about bad reporting and bias for instance (in violation of NPR/ PBS posted mission statements and code of ethics), how is it that your only response is to say that’s not your area? If you’re making managerial/ developmental/ operational investments and have that kind of business relationship, shouldn’t you at least be collecting these comments for feedback, internal policy/ process decisions, or at least some kind of report? Shouldn’t you be able to point commenters to some kind of official surveys or feedback process you have for your taxpayer funded entity? From this vantage point (with such limited/ non-existent information) it seems kind of like a shell game. It looks as though you are either an unnecessary organization, you’re not being fully upfront about your role, or you’re being used as a means to intentionally block public input into public broadcasting.

When the MacNeil-Lehrer Report first appeared in the 1970s, it was a shiny city on the hill in the wasteland of TV news. They would devote each show to a single issue, with opposing advocates sitting at the same table as they were interviewed by Robert MacNeil and Jim Lehrer. They were thus forced to make their best arguments because they could be immediately rebutted. The show did not tell the viewers what to think. They trusted the viewers to make up their own minds after hearing both sides of the story.

As the MacNeil-Lehrer Report became the PBS NewsHour and Judy Woodruff took over, she destroyed this once great show. She turned it into a propaganda program. Only one side of an issue is presented, the left wing side. For the weekly roundtable, they hired fake-conservative Jonathan Capehart as the conservative counterpart to liberal David Brooks. Instead of offering conservative arguments, Capehart seems to always agree with Brooks.