Inside PBS Blog

Hello Ms. Kerger.

If you haven't shown "Hacking Democracy" yet, could you?

There's also another film "Undetectable Computer Virus" which is supposed to show how ANY voting machine can be hacked, tally changed, leaving no trace.

We need honest elections in America. WE haven't been getting them.
We believe the voting machines certainly can be hacked, have been and are being as we speak.

www.blackboxvoting.org and www.bradblog.com are working toward honest elections. We need more help. The government sure isn't doing it.
Those in power will not allow us to vote them out of office. !!
How's that for Democracy?

Please do what you can, this is a crucial election and we must have as much honesty as we can.

Thank you,

God is Blessing You Now!

Marrion Steele

That is how most people in this area view PBS, do you have some good programming ABSOLUTELY, however I have seen zero attempt to balance what you try to pass off as fair reporting in your news, and believe it or not not everyone agrees on man made global warming causes.
I think PBS could and should continue to bring some of the unseen programming that doesnt fit in the commercial spectrum, honestly 20 years ago we would have seen the recent HBO special on John Adams on PBS but today it appears as though you are too interested in giving sway to every leftist or elitist group.
To steal a phrase from FOX why shouldnt the PBS stationsbe FAIR AND BALANCED.
They were 20 years ago and it is sad to see they have gone away.

I have noted that on several occasions that guests on PBS programs have been referenced - for credentialing purposes - by where the quest is employed or an institution with which they are affiliated. These references may include "think tanks" such as the Center for American Progress, the Heritage Foundation, or the Economic Policy Institute. Each of these "think tanks" is affiliated with certain political ideologies (be they progressive or conservative). If the guests are to be referenced as subject-matter specialists on the program's topic, it would be helpful to include some discussion of the political ideology of the underlying foundation with which they are affiliated (something as simple as "a conservative Washington-based think tank").

My formal questions are therefore: How does PBS first identify, and then schedule, subject-matter experts or specialists to appear on programming? What attempts are made to present a balanced view of subject matter through the sourcing and use of subject-matter experts?

What performance metrics are used to determine success for individual programs and PBS overall? By whom and what process are these metrics established? How have they changed over the years? How do these metrics differ from other media and broadcast outlets? Are they published anywhere? Do you feel these metrics provide a sufficiently informative, authoritative and consensus basis to management to make changes as needed as well as providing a strong and unique rallying point and identity around which to publicize and garner public support? Where are the gaps, whether surprising on the upside or downside?

Thank you for considering these questions.

Have you considered airing the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" as maybe a Frontline special?

My local PBS station (WGBH) spends nearly a third of its prime time programming fund raising with programs that range from outright scams such as "The Secret", Robert Kiyosaki and Ed Slott to very mediocre (to be generous) entertainment such as Andre Rieu.

The bulk of the programming is repeats.

1. Why are you allowed to call yourself "non commercial" when you allow commercials and are nothing more than an extended infomercial for a third of the broadcast year.

2. With most of your programming being infomercials or repeats what are contributors really funding.

When PBS goes into a fund raising period, why do you present such unattractive material? If the intention is to attract new viewers I believe you should present a crossection of PBS's finest programs. Instead, I get the impression that you want to annoy the present viewers in order to get them to make a contribution more quickly.

Our personal views influence the way we encode and decode information. As someone who encodes information for such a large audience, it is important that we know your personal political opinions. With which side of the isle have you most frequently voted? (Democrat or Republican) And let me preemptively say that the only way not to have a clear answer to this question is not to vote. I hope you vote. Thank you for your time in answering my question.

I'm wondering about the initiative I'm participating in right now.

I came here via a blogad at Daily Kos, and based on the limited number of questions I see posted on your blog, I'm wondering:

* how many blog communities carried your ad;
* can you name a few of the prominent and not so prominent sites;
* why did you choose blogs to promote PBS Engage;
* is PBS Engage being promoted anywhere else?

I'm a bit stunned at the small number of questions being asked, relative to the stature of PBS in American broadcasting. While PBS Engage has only been around since October 2007, can you give us a noteable example of how the interaction here has affected the PBS viewer's experience?

When are you going to start airing content that addresses matters of gender and sexuality in a dynamic and engaging way? It's been years since KQED aired Tales of the City and Tongues Untied. It's 2008.

When am I going to watch an American Masters that features a transgendered person? When am I going to watch a show that outlines the history of abortion? The sex industry? AIDS? Breast cancer?

Where's Gloria Steinem on American Masters? Angela Davis? Audre Lorde? Pat Barker? Susan Sontag? June Jordan? bell hooks? Ani DiFranco? Kathleen Hanna? Le Tigre? I'm sorry -- watching an American Masters about Julia Child doesn't exactly keep me on the edge of my seat. I'm 24 and while I love PBS I feel let down. Everyday.

How did you decide to Cover Presidential Candidate Dr. Ron Paul and his message of a return to Constitutionally limited government so poorly? Liberty, freedom, posterity and a end to undeclared wars would seem to resonate with both the left and right.

PBS President Paula Kerger
6/11/08 4:45pm

To: Ms. Paula Kerger

RE: http://www.pbs.org/engage/blog/five-good-questions-pbs-president-paula-k...

Dear Ms. Kerger:

I am so disappointed in my local PBS station. The advertising is tedious and with such (corrupted entities) as ADM, (Monster) Monsanto, (Killer) Coke, Greenberg, Traurig, etc., that I find it hard to even watch anymore; cringing as I do when I hear PBS' lies that PBS is commercial free. What a sick joke!

Another impediment to viewing - is the ubiquitous PBS logo that is superimposed on all transmissions. Is PBS having an identity crisis or merely a short-term memory problem? Does PBS need to remind itself of who it is incessantly? We, the public - those who pay your salaries - are sick to death of this idiocy.

I pay my satellite carrier - I don't need to continuously view your PBS logo. It so distracts from the message which your media should be presenting. Instead it says to me - "Look at ME, Look at ME, Look at ME -LOOK AT ME ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "

The only program I watch are your Friday night lineup, including Bill Moyers - though for the life of me I cannot imagine what he sees in PBS - as he so outclasses your once-sterling operation - so tainted now by contaminated money interests and certainly at the furthest apogee from the public's interests.

Shame on you.

As the big boys probably put you in a titular position I am sure you don't have any power to change any of the things I've mentioned. SOSDD Same old Stuff - Different Dilettantes.

How does it feel to be a puppet on a string? You'll make a bought-and-paid-for- lobbyist or corrupt public official soon. The biggest losers seem to get the highest promotions these days.

Bottom line: PBS will never see another dime of my money nor a kind word until things change appreciably. Millions of Americans feel as I do - that's why your ratings are "in the toilet."

I'm just a poor, single-Mom-raised-black Artist from South Bronx New York, who just spent some time reading all of the PBS bashing. My faith in America dictates I follow culture, religion, science, politics, and humanity in general. That resulted from 30 years of devotion to PBS. As an artist I compare programming, and I have found 'NONE' that come near PBS's consistency of: depth, fairness of reporting, cleanliness, research of culture, religion, science and politics - and, 'None,' who CONSISTANTLY feature powerful solutions through its dialog. The comments are shallow and negative when we need positive innovative suggestions. The News Hour, Charlie Rose, The Nightly Business Report, Tavis Smiley, and Nova alone are enough to justify PBS's integrity. So what if they have a few commercials. The news doesn't define the truth, content does. Here are examples of progressive questions:
1) Could you please address what percentage of Green-House gases are emitted by our wars, verses the effect of diverting those efforts to recovery (economy & clean energy technology) if our next leader happens to be able to negotiate a peace?
2) Would you please consider a forum for questions, such as this one, that collects, integrates, sorts and creates proposals for solutions for social and economic models?
3) Would you please further publicize proven socio-economic and political models along with health care models that already exist like in Sweden, Germany, European Union, ancient African and Mayan cultures
4) Would you please address the dynamics that create cultures of apathety dispite the level of crisis’s we face?
5) Could you do a statistic study and comparison displaying events of corruption of between political parties, and have a melting pot of scholars discuss and propose solutions? Thank You and stay strong in your convictions PBS. I love you.

Bill Moyers recently addressed what he called 'The Crisis In American Journalism.' This is partially the responsibility of a press that communicates in sound-bites, quick impressions, quick 'spins' and 'emotional reporting', rather than taking the time to research the deeper facts and long-range consequences of policies and actions.

But this is also the responsibility of an American electorate that has become, in my opinion, lazy and apathetic; more interested in MTV and American Idol than in, for example, the betrayal of Valerie Plame Wilson.

I hope that the media will continue to follow Rep. Kucinich's Resolution to Impeach George W. Bush. Whether you agree with Kucinich's actions or not, this resolution is very important. Bush is accused of not only lying personally, but of organizing a coordinated campaign to deceive Congress and the American people. The results of Bush's fabrications are not only 4,000 American soldiers dead and hundreds wounded; not only several hundred thousand Iraqis wounded and dead; not only antagonizing a whole new generation of young jihadists, suicide bombers and Al-Quaeda members sworn to destroy us'; and not only the social toll on our society of addiction, alcoholism, PTSD, divorces, broken relationships and broken families. But also the billions of dollars of debt and deficit, which in this era of rising oil prices and inflation, a housing crisis and global warming, threaten to sink our economy.

We Americans are a moral people. No nation is above the law, whether national law or international law. The US has violated international law by unilaterally invading Iraq on specious charges. Our government has betrayed us; and we have betrayed ourselves, by allowing it and buying into it so willingly.

It is time for us as a nation to examine our actions, and the actions of a president who (along with his vice-president, secretaries of state and defense, and national defense advisor) conducted a systematic campaign of mis-truths and mis-information, and the actions of a compliant media who all-too-easily bought into (and reported as fact!) these mis-truths rather than critically examining and challenging them.

1. Is it the job of PBS or anyone to show the "framing" of a question by
someone (corporations or government officials)?
2. Is it the responsibility of anyone to show the "process" where some decisions are already made and some are not? For example, when someone is making the following decision: What Hybrid Car Should I Buy? They have limited the options to a class called "Hybrids" and may be omitting consideration of anything that isn't a hybrid. The real goal might be broader.
3. Why don't you have experts in rational process that can parse the decision or problem from a process perspective?
4. Who does speak for the public? It's not access because that drying up and falling by the wayside.
5. Who can suggest motives or reasons for something? For example,
the only person I heard take on Scott McClellan's version of the truth was Jon Stewart and he took him on very narrowly - saying the Bush administration lied from the start. No one suggested that the McClellan book was an elaborate deception to give the Bush administration "cover" for a direct deceptive campaign to wage war on Iraq. For something like this, the punishment could be life imprisonment.

It makes me wince to listen to PBS pledge breaks, and every time they come on I can't help but think of the Jerry Lewis Telethon. Apparently when my husband was a kid, they used to sit and watch the Telethon when it was on because it was filled with so many funny, entertaining bits and beloved entertainers.

I've also noticed that in my local area, they've resigned themselves to the idea that pledge breaks are annoying and are now trying to give people an incentive to cut them short by pledging earlier. Isn't that awfully sad?

Would you consider changing the format of the PBS pledge breaks, so that instead of having talking heads repeating their pleas for money using the same phrases over and over until you don't even hear them any more, you might instead find ways to:
- highlight new, undiscovered local talent who would love to get some air time (open mike, undiscovered bands, etc.)
- bring on well-known entertainers who would love to help out the cause
- Make people laugh

That seems like such valuable air time, and it seems that there are ways to draw attention and make the call for money, while offering entertainment and laughter in return, and in the process keep people from doing the "Oh, it's a pledge break" Channel-Change.

Thanks for listening,

Betsy S, Cartoonist and Art Teacher

Dear Ms. Kerger,
Based upon reading many of the questions and comments you received for this forum, I must be one of the few citizens still naive enough to believe this country spends too few of its tax dollars on public radio and television. And, though limited corporate "commercial" funding may have at first seemed a reasonable means to aquire needed funding for programming, this has proven a naive strategy. Corporations serve stockholders, not the public interest.

This "corporate" stranglehold is now threatening what is the last bastion of uncorrupted "public" news and information. Public radio and television are the only places where I still consistently hear and see the media's Fairness Doctrine practiced (though not always). I would argue that it is the corporate media's drive for profits that has sent this country into a dire tailspin, dividing this country with FOX News and Air America like mentality.

My main questions are centered on this concern. How committed is public broadcasting to the Fairness Doctrine? Will public broadcasting confront the government's lack of applying the Fairness Doctrine upon corporate media? And finally, how about a news story (or better yet, a series) that brings the issue of the Fairness Doctrine to the people (us, the public in PBS)?

Years ago, I can remember people laughing at the word "rhetoric," in the same way that sticks and stones break bones but words can never hurt. This country's bones are breaking under the weight of untethered rhetoric (witness how media moguls and their paid corporate interests cringe at the whisper of the Fairness Doctrine). There's simply too much left or too much right where ever one goes for news and information, which all begs my final question. When will public broadcasting gather together the cahunas to approach Congress and the President to gain full funding of public media?

This may well prove the public's only way to gain refuge from the vast abyss of tainted rhetoric that fills our newspapers, websites, blogs, and airwaves.

Mrs. Kerger,
What is PBS willing and able to do about the broken, outdated pledge model that it helplessly clings to for fundraising? I am a contributor and supporter of my local station and have been for quite some time. The telethon model of fundraising disrupts regular viewership for "special" programming that often is not supported by viewers as they are intelligent enough to instead of going to the phone, going to a web or big box retailer and buying the "special gift" for a reasonable retail price. (Look at buying trends on some media retail websites during pledge periods and see "your" specials skyrocket!)
The argument could be made for a European goverment-subsidized, government run "public" broadcasting system, but we know (and fear) what that would do to public broadcasting as we know it. The argument has also been raised to allow PBS and NPR to be commercial entities given the financial disadvantage that they face.

My question to you is what are you and PBS first able (by law and federal mandate, mission statement) capable of doing to find and tap into different revenue streams and secondly how far is PBS willing to go to secure a strong financial future so that if and when the day comes that the rug is pulled out from under you, you can stand on your own.
Thank you for the often difficult, rewarding work that you and PBS do for the public who depend on your services.

Why do you continue to have those motivational speakers during pledge season....??? They are so dumb that I have been withheld my pledges and will continue to do so as long as you waste funds on these time wasters who are an insult to the intelligence of your audience...

Are you allowed to show the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" If so, can you please show it multiple times? The public really needs to hear about this issue. If General Motors would have kept the EV1 program going we would have EV2 or even EV3 by now that would get even greater range per charge and with a lower cost. Thank you in advance if you do.

Hi, I used to be a regular visitor to PBS's website and would have been your best customer if your products were available for sale to Australia.

We still see a lack of media formats available for information of the broader community, a country with 21 million people with the majority "mainstream" (Big Brother, football etc), there is a small "niche" market for filmakers.

The good films I have bought, and shown at not for profit film evenings, have been from the U.S.A. No outlet I have seen though, has the range of titles/subjects that you have.

I always thought the American ideal of free enterprise was a universal tenet. We recieve the Lerner Newshour which I watch frequently.

Is there any possibility that your products will become globally available ?

regards,
richard.

WHY is pbs so politically biased to the left?

pbs receives in excess of $400 million in taxpayer dollars plus the other millions upon millions from viewers.

This nation is NOT overwhelmingly members of the left wing extremist mentality. More than half of the people consider themselves to be Conservative or Moderate. THEREFORE, your programs AND news should reflect that breakdown. BUT, your news programs and other programs are fundamentally left wing extreme at their core.

A major shift in how the pbs news is presented and what dirrection the programming takes is essential. If such a change is NOT made, with a change in presentations of the news to reflect a far more honest and omitting the leftist bias, the American voter is going to demand that all taxpayer funding be eliminated. When such is brought before Congress, the dollars received as donations, etc will take a major hit.

It is time to make a taxpayer funded operation more like the American voter and NOT like the far left extremist you ccurrenly bow before.

Why is it that virtually all PBS "journalists" go out of their way to erase the line between legal and illegal immigration? I am an immigrant who came to America at the age of six. I see a vast difference between my family which waited for a visa and those millions who pay coyotes to get them across the border. To my mind, being able to evade the Border Patrol does not make you a hero nor does it qualify you for citizenship. Yet, your "journalists" like David Brancaccio and Maria Hinojosa (who clearly has a bias), and even Bill Moyers, repeatedly and consistently refer to "immigrants" and "anti-immigrant sentiment" whent the truth is that we are talking about what the law terms "illegal aliens." That terms is not a pejorative, it is a term of art just like "legal alien" or "resident alien." This has nothing to do with ET or with Sigourney Weaver and her lizards. Yet the people mentioned above and others of PBS consistently refer to an "immigration problem" when they are talking about those entering illegally into the country. Why don't you just get honest and call them what they are: illegal aliens, or at least illegal immigrants?

What is PBS doing to address content for the, say, 18-45 demographic? I have watched PBS since before I could read, but it has counted for less and less of my total TV-viewing time as I have gotten older (and not just because I have cable now!) I appreciate efforts such as Independent Lens and History Detectives, and continue to watch NOVA (a consistent favorite.) But are any more new franchises in development, or older ones being reinvented?

Don't use this picture. Every time I look at it, it is a picture of someone who is thinking "Don't hit me! !"

Barack Obama and John McCain recently turned down an offer by a commercial network to host a Presidential debate, citing the network's desire to retain proprietary control of the content--the network wanted to own it and charge other networks to use clips. I'm glad the candidates refused, because I think this is a specific instance where a broadcast should be available to all of us as we decide who to support. I think hosting it on PBS would be a wonderful idea, especially considering the awful, uninformative nature of both Republican and Democratic debates on commercial broadcast and cable TV in the primary season. Jim Lehrer is respected on all sides, and it wouldn't surprise me if NOW could be enticed to sponsor it again, as they did in the old days.

I'm sure Paula is busy and there were a lot of questions but if the idea of these posts is to build a dialog, timely and on point responses are needed to the questions. I'd love to have a reason to think PBS is going to regain its stature and to watch again....

How about it Paula?

Scott Ritter wrote an article about our massive media failures in 2002 and 2003, leading up to the Iraq war - could PBS investigate this?

here's the link:

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/87625/?page=1

I rather doubt that NBC will investigate the "Bloommobile".

Also, I heard Gwen Ifil make a comment that both Presidential candidates are "outsiders" - this is a real stretch for one candidate who has been in the US Senate for four years, but it is really ridiculous for the other candidate who has been in Washington DC since 1982. That would be the old guy.

I would recommend running Democracy Now! program and dropping Aaron Brown. It will greatly improve your ability to get real information out to people.

Personally, I find it quite irritating that those who complain that PBS is left leaning in it's presentation of issues and current events have the audacity to lodge such a foolish, self-centered opinions. If you choose to blindly subscribe to rightwing idiology watch the mainstream media which is stagnant with those opinions. It seems to me these complainers they are incapable of critical and independent thought - they find differing opinions threatening and offensive. Therefore, these herds should confine their TV watching to their centers comfort on mainstream media outlets which psychologically brainwash them into submissive sheeple.

Presumably, these complainers are the ever dwindling 20-22% who believe the country's doing swell with their fellow citizens swept from their homes in scandalous banking foreclosures allowed by the deregulation of rules which were held in place since the last depression. These are people who condone the $40 Billion + profits of oil companies (with off shore office who don't pay US taxes) while executives collect millions in bonus fees while at the same time working masses pay ever escalating prices at the pumps -- another phenomonen enabled by more deregulations of the hedge fund tradering which are driving prices of oil and commodities ever highter - without ever a thought for the resultant starving masses world wide who can no longer afford food.

(Please do a Frontline investigation into the two head honchos at Bear Sternes who mastered this subprime debacle now being Federally investigated for fraud.)

Excluding the independent media on the internet, publicly funded Pacificia which presents all issues without bias the voice of the masses has been choked off due to media consolidation which presents fascist opinion cloaked as "news"..........the mainstream media is dying becasue 82% of Americans are sick of the lies and endless propaganda, not to mention nonstop commerical breaks. Americans are far more savvy than commercial broadcasters assume, it's only the hand full of dissenters who have written complaints about the PBS programming.

NOW and Bill Moyers was such a threat with the telling of truth that the rightwingers tried to drumroll him into oblivion. Thanks to massive protests and promises to withhold contributions that was happily reverseld and Mr. Moyers was returned to his sixty minute weekly contribution of fail and balanced reporting.

Please consider having the presidential candidates do an open debate with entirely live call in questions from supporting members of PBS.

Please tell the story of Toyota going from a clothing manufacturer to the world's largest car seller.......because they are doing the "right thing" not to mention offering a 500 mpg vehicle to be sold within the next two years.

Please do a presentation on the formation of the North American Union and whether it will be good or bad for Americans.

Please offer rural areas the same rich format afforded in urban areas. Often I visit my son in the New York Metro area where PBS WORLD is offered along with Boston and other area PBS presentations........why is the richness of these diverse programs withheld from viewers just 300 miles north?

I deeply appreciate your programming and countering opinions to the drivel presented relentlessly on main stream media.

Keep up the good work and ignore the detractors who are threatened by truth.

Here's something new and perhaps foreign. How about some unbiased content rather than your perpetual pandering to the left? Would that really be so 'darn' difficult!?! We are being forced (through taxes) to pay for this, you know. I'd really, really, really like to see some equal time given to conservative points of view.

1SG Vance