Your Feedback

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!

Gee seeing on your program allowing g him to speak about his helping Detroit is such bullshit. Why didn’t you ask him about his Rico charges or his gold fixing schemes. When did pbs become a PR puppet for Jamie Diamond?

Impeachment notice during nova You’re running of a subtitle message to view Impeachment procedures during are you daughter da Vinci nova Copperside is disgusting. I find it insulting when watching a non-political program to be subjected to liberal attacks on our president. I quickly change the channel and will re-examine my donations to PBS in the future.

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 as well as child pornography. Public trust has been violated in numerous ways, including the sale of private information, the reliance on a lack of user understanding regarding privacy settings and a paucity 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 nonprofit platform that would offer all of the original family and friend communication services 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.

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.

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 Farmington Hills, Michigan 248-763-2916

I treasure and look forward to PBS news broadcast since I feel it is the most objective. I must say though that I think much of the time of the reporting is focused on the small details who said what where did they say it. Equally important is the big picture. Take a step back and look at the president's behavior both verbal and actionable. The entire situation regarding the Ukraine demonstrate the behavior of a bully. He demeans any opponent, he deflects any criticism of him to be the work of others. He does not see the bigger picture. Certainly he does not see the importance of the big picture of the United States relationship to Ukraine. He reacts positively to other person's bully behavior and of course all his focus is on himself. How often has he used the term we or the term our? I would invite the NewsHour to interview behavioral professional. I see his overall behavior as typical of what we would expect from the mob boss. His behavior has been unlike any other president in the modern era. I invite PBS to take a long broad total look at his behavior in the context of the office of the President.