Your Feedback

As an indy producer, are the song performed in a program I provide to a PBS affiliate covered under the CPB music rights umbrella under which PBS affiliates operate? Thanks.

I doubt seriously that negative comments about PBS programming and/or its purported bias are submitted by regular viewers, but rather are submitted as part of a campaign to defund public broadcasting waged by political factions that live in a “post reality” world in which ideology trumps, so to speak, a genuine concern for a reliable picture of the world as it is instead of how they have been led to believe it should be. What these commentators have in common is an unwillingness to accept that political reality is under no obligation to be either reassuring or pleasant. In my judgment, based on four decades of teaching and researching mass media, public broadcasting (whether television or radio) is to a democracy as a clean water and good air quality are to a healthy community.

I like Stephanie Sy and the article she did on homelessness.

This program used to be my favorite feature Friday evening. Capehart is such a mouthpiece for Biden and Kamala Harris and so strident in the Democrat propaganda that I have elected to turn off the program when it appears on Friday evening. Mark Shields or is remarkable in his broad perspective on politics. Capehart is just a Democrat who loves to spin the spending siren song.. I am so sorry that he was chosen to be the spokesperson on your Friday evening feature. Thank you, Fred Winston

This message and attachment came to the OIGemail hotline. The OIG has responded that it is not our area of responsibility. OIG is forwarding here so that you can send to either strategy and innovation or some other department.

OIG and Board of Directors CPB, I am a 79 year old grandfather……My wife and I, like you and the rest of the Country, are very concerned about Facebook.

There is increasing attention and frustration regarding the negative and even destructive, aspects of this problematic social media platform but few viable ideas to “clean up” the problems.

How about considering a unique approach that doesn’t threaten First Amendment free speech rights and gives people a choice??

I am asking you to consider legislation that would create the possibility of a Public Option Social Media Platform. A nonprofit platform that would offer all of the wonderful original family and friend communication options that are not problematic. There would be no advertising, no personal data collection and no ability to disseminate dangerous false news sources.

Conveniently, the vehicle for this concept already exists. As you know, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private, nonprofit entity that was created and funded by Congress in 1967. CPB’s mission is to ensure universal access, over-the-air and online, to high-quality content and telecommunications services that are commercial free and free of charge.

Just as National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) were originally designed as public options to commercial radio and television, so would this Public Social Media (PSM) option be available to those who choose to enroll. We can all remember how we, as young parents, chose Sesame Street for our children because it was available as an alternative to commercial TV programs. Why can’t today’s families have an alternative to Facebook?

There would certainly be many challenges to the development of an appropriate Public Option Social Media Platform but it sure looks like the time has come for serious consideration.

On the back is a letter, with more detail, that was never published.

Am I too naive or is this a viable option? Is it possible that we as Americans have a possible legislative solution that would allow us to have the choice to select an appropriate social media platform??

Thank you for taking the time to consider a proud grandfather’s quest for a better future for my granddaughters!

Michael Rolnick Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331 248-763-2916

The next material was attached but Rolnick said he has not sent to NYTIMES New York Times To The Editor: Revelations concerning widespread abuse by many commercially available social media platforms are deeply troubling. These huge platforms have become purveyors of false advertising, both political and commercial, have participated in providing insidious foreign influence and become vehicles for rampant cyber-bullying. Public trust has been violated in numerous ways, including the sale of private information, presumed confidential, the reliance on a lack of user understanding regarding privacy settings and a lack of legislative and self-regulation in the industry. We have all observed a failure to monitor policy and practice until finally compelled by public and political pressures. Most alarming is the willful use of the First Amendment as a shield to ignore or avoid actions that will eliminate abuse and regain public trust with ethical behavior.

There is an approach that would effectively address many of the aforementioned unacceptable realities.That approach would be a Public Option Social Media Platform. A non-profit platform that would offer all of the original family and friend communication options that are not problematic. There would be no advertising and no ability to disseminate false, dangerous or destructive news sources.

Conveniently, the vehicle for this concept already exists. According to its published goals and objectives, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a private, nonprofit corporation created and funded by Congress in 1967. CPB's mission is to ensure universal access, over-the-air and online, to high-quality content and telecommunications services that are commercial free and free of charge. serve.

Just as National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) were originally designed as publjc options to commercial radio and television, so would this Public Social Media (PSM) option be available to those who choose to enroll.

It should be emphasized that this public option, as part of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, like the proposals for a health care public insurance option, would be a choice to be made by each individual and would in no way be mandatory. In fact, there would be many who would want more than such a public option might offer and choose the commercial options that presently exist. It is also possible that enough individuals would support the public option so that market place forces could generate positive changes in the commercial environment.

There would certainly be many challenges to the development of an appropriate Public Option Social Media Platform but perhaps the time has come in this country for serious consideration.

Michael Rolnick

None of the programming CPB supports interests or benefits me. Why do I have to pay for it? You should transition to an advertisement supported platform instead of using money that could be better used for the betterment of all taxpayers.

I appeal to Yamiche Alcindor to stop beginning her questioning of each week’s guests by saying to them that she is going to “turn to you, so-and-so. Talk to me a little bit about ….” It’s a verbal tic that is both annoyingly repetitive and uses many more words than needed to accomplish the same objectives.

It is much more important for public media to get defunded than the police. Over the past five years public media has done a nosedive away from positive, culturally improving content, to slimy, bottom of your shoe, dregs of 'I'm offended' devisive content. This shouldn't be rewarded with grants and high paychecks. These 'writers' are a disease.

It is long past time to defund NPR. It has had a biased, liberal agenda for years and now outright states such beliefs opening by holding the Declaration of Independence in derision, and at taxpayer expense.