Your Feedback

Hi this is .. I am a mother and a grandmother, and I am absolutely appalled that the cartoon character Arthur is having a same-sex marriage on their programming for the premier this season. It is awful. I will not support public broadcasting if you are going to put this kind of stuff on. I am asking all of my friends with young children not to watch this show  

The commentator consistently inserts a bias word into his question statement to the reporters. He asks: What is happening this week with the deplorable conditions and the failed Trump policies at the border. He should ask: What is happening with the conditions and policies at the border this week.

He should be replaced. I was a regular weekly viewer, but rarely watch anymore.

I wrote to ask about PASSPORT programs requiring additional membership fees to be accessible. If this is Public Television -PUBLIC MEANS PUBLIC -accessible to EVERYONE - not just to those paying additional membership fees. Since Public Television receives FEDERAL FUNDING - all programming should be available to everyone - So I have contacted my Congressional Representatives since no one from your group has responded to my previous email. As taxpayers we have already contributed to Public Television & should not be required to pay additional membership fees to access programs. In addition - 5 friends have contacted their Congressional Representatives in regard to this issue. Thank You.

Discussions regarding the results of the Mueller questioning of the Russian collusion report seemed to be focusing on moving forward with the impeachment process. Let's face it, Trump deserves to be impeached no more the H Clinton deserved to be penalized. Trump was voted in as the anti-establishment throwback guy who is highly involved in business. He has contacts around the world in high places. If smut lands on his desk, is he to ignore it? Let's move on as it's going nowhere and is sounding highly partisan/biased and the media are pushing the narrative.

David Gelles “Corner Office” column interview of Patricia Harrison told of her appreciation for Colin Powell’s way of working with people. I share her view of his leadership style, purposive teamwork. For me, the most important points in Gelles’ piece are the statements about what CPB does and for whom it is important. I live in Montana. Public media are essential to life here, and they are well supported. I am proud of my YPR t-shirt. Gelles did not ask about marketing. He should have. I loved teaching marketing, researching markets not so much, so I think I see what it is that our public media are selling. Credibility. Every public radio station, every ETV channel, is hustling donations. Hucksters May entertain us but they do not engender trust. It creates jobs for marketing students, yes, but to what end? We do not have the commercial-free programming that Ms. Harrison mentioned. CPB May protest my complaint that credibility is being sacrificed, that the advertising is essential to solvency, etc. I also listen to BBC and CBC. How do they do it, financially? Gelles failed to ask. How about a comparative documentary? I would watch / listen. Sincerely yours, Verne W House, Ancient Fan

I am a long-time financial supporter of PBS, and applaud your recent airings on the Newshour about how the public health sector is preparing for the next flu pandemic. As an evolutionary biologist and teacher for thirty years, I was really disappointed that PBS refrained from ever using the important word 'evolution' when trying to explain how the flu virus 'adapts'. Instead, the narrator explained that the viral strains were 'created' by 'mutating, growing, and spreading'. We were told that the virus often 'jumps' from birds to humans, without being told that to do that, some random mutations by chance permit the virus to overcome the challenges for the virus to grow in humans. PBS missed an excellent 'teachable moment' by not explaining that viral genes, are constantly randomly mutating when they reproduce. It's those random changes in their genetic make-up that enable them to evolve so quickly, permitting them to 'jump' from a bird host to a human one, when one or several mutations occur that permit them to overcome the challenges of adapting to a new host. While I was happy to see you use the words 'mutate', and 'adapt', you fell far short of educating the public on how this excellent example of rapid evolutionary change occurs. The more the press explains science the better. But I bet your reporters actually discussed how you could parse the narration so that you wouldn't offend any of your 'creationist' viewers. Shame on you for not being totally transparent that any flu pandemic results from the ability of viruses to rapidly evolve to new environments, which is the same thing that happens to produce antibiotic resistent bacteria. I have come to enjoy and expect excellence from PBS - please do better on your reporting of science! So much of the public depends on your excellent reporting to get it right.

Ms. Amanpour and her group consistently display profoundly partisan views without granting equal time to opposing views. The discussions are often boring because C.A. Asks leading questions, which really makes her biased perspectives transparent. The program ends up being free advertisement for political partisans usually with a book to promote who are sympathetic to views expressed by Ms. Amanpour. She never or rarely gives equal time to opposing viewpoints and often the "conservatives" she invites on her program have a middle of the road to negative view of the conservative views, such as Kasich. Amanpur's conservatives must have one trait, Hate Trump. I object to my tax dollars going to fund leftist propaganda, night after night. This same complaint goes to other PBS programs such as Open Mind and The PBS Newshour. Amanpour should be cancelled and Newshour should be reconstituted with new and different reporters and managing editor. Stop the nepotism already. (Des Jardin) And the far leftist Alcindor. Woodruff should be retired. Enough of the feminist anti male drum beat. Besides, they are increasingly boring and irrelevant news coverage. You can do better Much better. The exception is Firing Line, where you have a very fair minded Ms. Hoover and staff doing their homework and asking the tough questions.

Why isn't Amna Nawaz appearing anymore? She is very good but appears she's being pushed out when she's clearly one of the best you've ever had! What's going on in your corporation?

This morning's story "Reporters Tour Texas Holding Facility For Migrant Children" by Joel Rose (hosted by Steve Inskeep), regarding a second tour of the El Paso facility that has recently been under scrutiny contained some completely unacceptable content. My feelings about the way NPR has covered the story aside, there is no place to slyly insert derogatory and completely unfounded slander against the family members of those faithfully following their duty to their country.

Rose: Hull said "[About the allegations] It's hurtful". His "agents are risking their lives, their health and even their marriages in order to do their jobs"

Inskeep: Risking their marriages? Why are they risking their marriages?

Rose: I didn't even get a chance to follow up on that.

Inskeep: Maybe just saying they're very busy, I don't know, or maybe that their spouses disapprove with what's going on...(followed quickly by a transition with no room for comment)

NPR has a right and obligation to look into potential wrongdoing in a situation, but these unfounded (according to Rose's own admission) insinuations that are targeting what apparently are already strained relationships by officers and their spouses is a low blow. This is unacceptable journalism that fails to foster peace and solution-finding, but rather discord and agitation.

I invite and expect professional recourse for Mr. Inskeep and his intolerable insensitivity.