Your Feedback

The information presented on PBS is trusted and unbiased. I’m grateful for the professionalism. However Yamiche Alcindor is such a poor speaker that it distracts from the information. She has a halting almost stuttering speech pattern. How this is allowed to continue baffles me. I also think it’s time for Judy Woodruff to retire. Thanks for reading.

Yamiche Alcindor. Please. She's not up to it. I've gotten to the point where I mute her when she's speaking. Please. Do something.

The BBC feed has not come through. I'm just calling because this is not an unusual situation. It goes on and on and no one checks it at the top of the hour. It would seem like you would be concerned about this for your news watching public. 

I am 63, and for most of my life have supported my local PBS station and NPR. I am now officially divorcing your corporation. Why? You are biased and obviously working for the corporations who support you. After years of gulping down the "belief" that your programming is for the people, I have now awaken to the reality of complete bias on your end against real change that is NOT supported by either the 1 percent nor the corporate welfare state. I am not alone in this awakening. Expect millions of us to finally tune out and no longer support your "business".

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

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.