Your Feedback

I'm calling because I just watched the Brooks and Shields segment on the NewsHour about the assignation of Suleiman, the Iranian general. I'm really dismayed at the apparent sanction of the American government assassinate people without taking the proper consideration. I think it's really dangerous. They made it sound like this was an okay thing. We're on the brink of disaster, potential catastrophic disaster, walking into another war like Iraq. It is irresponsible of PBS and the NewsHour to let these guys come on the air and not give thorough, unbiased opinions on these things. 

Claims of a diverse media is not accurate. The shows are mostly white orientated. The black talk shows, topic, complaints and discussion are no ware to be found on Public TV. Most of the black actors are being shown as criminals in movies as well as on news Broadcasting. The public media is showing pregidous actions in there programming and it appears to be a premeditated, sinikely established conspiracy against the male African decendants.

I can’t believe Judy woddruff closing comment about the brief but spectacular segment tonight on pain and forgiveness was simply “wow what a remarkable story”. She should have said Wow what a remarkable WOMAN!!! Very very sad remark Judy!!!!

Here is the question for PBS and its NewsHour; Do you think that the new information regarding the deliberate poisoning of the families in Flint, Michigan is worthy of a complete segment which will ultimately ask whether a criminal act was committed by the Executives of Veolia, the public utility, whose senior Executives were aware that lead from the city’s pipes could be leaching into drinking water, but never revealed that because they were bidding on another contract?

Does PBS believe that as a network TV station, operating in the interests of the public, and is a TAX Exempt corporation partially operating with tax payers governmental support, should be on the front line of this endless list of corporate environmental criminal behavior or do you think you should continue to behave as all other "For Profit" networks?

We are at the cusp of creating major changes to the American system of government as well as the removal of Corporate Entitlement in our country and in 2020, for the first time in modern history, voters will actually decide which road this nation should take!

Does PBS feel any amount of responsibility toward that end, or does it still feel that "balanced news" or its result, giving both sides of the argument despite the fact that one side continues to lie regularly and the PBS commentators do not challenge them?

What does the management of PBS, a government funded non profit, believe is their responsibility during such times as these, besides "reporting" or having nearly dead commentators espousing decades old rhetoric and analysis, as our nation faces the greatest peril since the Civil War?

It is up to you to decide now, not tomorrow or next year, to clean house and look closely at The Guardian's work and then get a clear picture of what "Non Profit" actually means! History will reveal your complicity, as it has done with the German media decades ago! Is that to be the legacy of your management?

Bill Sortino

Dear Judy, I'm sure the NewsHour statistics about gun ownership in Wyoming are accurate. However, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a mass school shooting or mass shooting of any kind in Wyoming. As a Wyoming native, I'm asking the NewsHour to add that data to clarify the often mistaken perceptions about Wyoming. Thanks to you and the NewsHour for your excellent public service! Judy Gould Sacramento, CA

I was saddened by the latest Presidential debates, for many reasons, not the least of which was your allowing running commentary during some intermissions. The commentators were superfluous. Viewers like me need time free of talking heads. What these heads had to say was utterly superficial. Viewers deserve time for reflection without the hasty intrusiveness of commentators who seemed be speaking to an audience that hadn’t witnessed What they’re discussing. There was no real analysis, but simple summary. I support Public Broadcasting, but not this atrocious commentary. Also, can you please explain how the questioners and the commentators were chosen, and why no academics (eg. Political scientists, historians, experts in rhetoric/debate )were not chosen as either questioners or commentators?

I look forward to your reply.

George T. Karnezis Georgetkarnezis@gmail.com Portland, Oregon

A

I have watched PBS for years, but lately judy Woodruff is too much to take, the bias she is showing takes away from this station as being the last decent place to get unbiased news, the debacle that this country has gone through for over 3years has made a lot of us have no faith in the media in general, understand she is entitled to her own personal views, but wish she could temper her responses when she hears a different point of view from her own.

As a “viewer like you” and a contributor not only to our local PBS station but to three public radio stations, I encourage PBS to broadcast gavel-to-gavel coverage of the upcoming impeachment hearing for the reasons as cogently expressed in the full-page ad published in today’s New York Times (and I presume in other newspapers as well). Regardless of one’s position on the matter, access to the information to be developed serves the very purpose for which public broadcasting was established and which is presented absent bias and spin.

As of Friday, I have been unable to pick up your stations. Wonder if it's just me or problem in my area. Thank you!