Your Feedback

Dear Mr. Shields, I just read David Brooks's column on your retirement following the Newshour broadcast this coming Friday, and I need to write to wish you, from deep in my heart, the very best. I have watched the News Hour since 1982, when it was the MacNeil Lehrer Report. I have watched you since GERGEN and Shields. I also was the one who ran into you in a hotel in San Diego some years back while you were trying to order some eggs from the breakfast buffet and thanked you for all you do -- sorry to disrupt you! I am going to miss you. I have always admired your passion, decency, goodness, and humanity. You treated people fairly. You spoke with such clarity about the democratic process, of your conviction that politics can be a force of good. I cannot thank you enough.

This Friday I will tune in again, looking forward to seeing you once more. I will smile, and likely a tear or two will fall down my cheek. You are, Mr. Shields, something special. Thank you again, and best wishes.

Thank you, Mr. Boston..watched you every Friday for years.

I will miss Mark Shields commentary but look forward to his occasion appearances. It is like a breath of fresh air to hear Mark's take on current events, especially during the last few years when democracy took a nosedive. I also found his exchanges with David Brooks a model for civil discourse... he is a gentleman and a scholar. Thank you.

I sincerely want to know why people who run for offices in congress are not vetted at any point when they are running for office, especially the President. How can we even begin to clean up the toxicity in Washington if we do not Vet who is wanting these positions? If we the people have any hope for a continued democracy, this is mandatory and yet for some reason it is not. This sadly is how vacant human beings with no grasp of moral perpetuity become monsters, grifting America under the disguise of patriotism. Please help me and the rest of this nation understand why we have failed in making sure this thoughtlessness does not continue.

I was wondering if there were going to be any investigation or any comment that I've read on other news sites about the Hunter Biden emails. I wanted to know what NPR's position was on that and what they have been finding out. I would appreciate if something could be brought up about it so we could at least be informed. 

Some of the YouTube videos linked on the history timeline are either broken or do not match to the description. For example the 3-2-1 contact video is "a day in the life of a KISS concert" and the January 12, 1982, American Playhouse video is "for colored girls: somebody almost walked..." October 25, 1971 video is unavailable June 6, 1983 video is unavailable

These are just the ones that I have found. I haven't gone past 1983.

Dear leadership of CPB,

I am writing regarding a problem with the way the "public" WNYC treats its listeners.

I approached WNYC asking them to make a segment on judicial fraud -- judges replacing in their decisions parties' argument with bogus argument of judges' own concoction so as to decide cases the way they want to, not the way they have to -- and when sued for fraud. judges arguing that they have a self-given (in Pierson v. Ray) right to act from the bench "maliciously and corruptly." (I tried to describe this pernicious phenomenon at https://alibi.com/news/61032/Judicial-Fraud-Impacts-Americans.html and you can check my site, www.cajfr.org)

I purchased tickets, and came to several events with Brian Lehrer, their host of political program so as to talk to him, and came to meetings of their Community Advisory Board to advocate for reporting of judicial fraud -- and asked for reason why 1/3 of US government -- its judiciary -- being officially "corrupt and malicious" does not count as "news."

They refused to answer this simple question, and I kept e-mailing them further evidence of judicial fraud. They blocked my e-mail address and phones -- so I cannot e-mail them or call them. Is that a way to treat a listener by a "public" radio station? They are taking money from the public -- from NPR, and thru fund drives in which they assure listeners that they are the epitome of honest reporting, acting in public interest -- which is a lie because investigating how judging is being done, and reporting that judges think they have a right to act "maliciously and corruptly," is manifestly in the public interest, and hiding this as WNYC does, is counter to the public interest -- as is cutting off communications with members of the public just because what they hear from the public is not to their liking.

CPB likely gives WNYC some funds -- this funding should be cut off. WNYC's contempt for the public does not warrant public funding.