Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS

   
 the Online NewsHour
E-mail This Page Print This Page
the Online NewsHourChevronIntelBNSF RailwayWells FargoToyotaMonsantoCorporation for Public Broadcasting
BROWSE BY
REGION
TOPIC
RECENT PROGRAMSLOCAL TV LISTINGSSUBSCRIPTIONSTEACHER RESOURCESSEARCH
About Us
Have Your Say: Political Convention Coverage
August 29, 2008

Every four years, the Democratic and Republican National Conventions draw thousands of members of the media who devote hours of coverage and an ever-evolving set of resources -- from print to television to online -- to cover the political event.

This year, the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is offering complete coverage of the conventions and has expanded its online offerings to include Web -only videos and forums where viewers can ask party officials and analysts their questions.

The NewsHour is not alone in devoting its news resources to these stories and media critics have been busy assessing the result. The New York Times reviewed most television offerings and the Washington Post has critiqued newspaper coverage. Then there is Slate's Jack Shafer who has questioned the need for any press coverage at all.

Also, the viewers have not been shy to share their opinions. Here's what some have had to say so far on PBS's coverage.


Ryan wrote on Aug. 26:

THANK YOU!!!! As a viewer, who does not have cable or satellite, it is so refreshing to be able to view the Democratic Convention in greater length than other networks. The in-depth coverage and conversation in-between speeches is outstanding. I cannot wait for similar coverage of the Republican Convention!


Barb and Dave wrote on Aug. 25:

ARE YOU CRAZY TO OFFER A FULL WEEK OF the NewsHour featuring the DNC? What makes you think that the average American wants to spend his dinner hour watching a bunch of egotistic politicos, including the much- maligned Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy??? Where's the world news? HOW CAN YOU SO MISINTERPRET what people want? The Democratic National Convention? Who are you kidding?! Monetary contributions will go down again.


Carolyn wrote on Aug. 28:

Thank you for your intelligent, complete coverage. Your team is not more concerned with your own ideas and impressing people than the event. You are giving us the convention. Thank you. I do have one suggestion. The first night Mark Shields and David Brooks were concerned that it was not "dramatic or emotional" enough. In the first place they were wrong, it was emotional. The historians got it right. However, I think perhaps a different perspective would help.

But what about you? Do you think the coverage has been appropriate? Has the NewsHour done its job or done too much? What about other networks and media outlets?

Share your thoughts below:

Comments (626)    |   Email   

NewsHour Viewer Comments
Posted:
10/ 2/08 at
04:04 PM 		jb : Third party candidates should get equal time on PBS. Ralph Nader for example should be allowed to debate with Obama and McCain. He should be allowed to be on "Fresh Air". PBS is Public broadcasting, not just Democrat and Republican broadcasting.
Posted:
10/ 1/08 at
05:52 PM 		Maria Ramirez : I was very upset at the moderator Gwen Ifil, as a Hispanic female voter, the comments and questions for the Presidential election were offensive. As a minority and woman this totally one sideded "moderator" for a station that depends on public funding was a disgrace and should have been replaced with a true moderator or it should have been titled the Campaigning for Obama.
Posted:
09/28/08 at
02:03 AM 		JMe : Please, please, please, give the American public what we want: to see the candidate who stands for what we want in the presidential debates. Ralph Nader (along with other candidates polled above 1%) should have equal opportunity to present their campaigns publicly and nationally. They try so hard to campaign, but none of their accomplishments media-wise compare to the corporate-run media attention of Obama/McCain. PBS is the one public station that broadcasts variety (not just local trivialities). You guys depend on your viewers for support. So do the alternative candidates. You should put your similarities together and host a debate with ALL the candidates running (above 1% nationally). Are Obama and McCain afraid that what Ralph Nader has to offer might appeal to the majority of Americans; thus, they'll lose and Nader will win? Well, they should be because we want that to happen. Nader has a chance. It's up to you to give him that chance.
Posted:
09/26/08 at
10:57 PM 		Robert E. Lee : The flag was on the other lapel tonight. I think it always was a non-issue except in its pettiness.
Posted:
09/21/08 at
05:47 PM 		Nikki Blum : Re: the Vice-Presidential debate Gov. Palin herself would say that her views are certainly informed by her faith. I, for one, would like to know in what ways an End-of-Days scenario directs her foreign policy outlook. A fair question that I hope Gwen Ifill will ask as moderator of the debates.
Posted:
09/21/08 at
04:39 AM 		Adam Avikainen : Bert and Ernie would vote for Nader if they knew about him.
Posted:
09/20/08 at
10:45 PM 		Disgusted in San Diego : For Gwen Ifil. I just read an article that says McCain campaign asked the debate between the VP's (to put it mildly) be dumbed down because they don't feel Sarah could handle a real debate. This is disgusting and very sexist. How are we going to find out what she is really like. I hope you take this into consideration. You are a very fair reporter and I would think that you would like to keep the standards of the debate intack. Thank you
Posted:
09/19/08 at
01:48 PM 		rostapher : PBS is remiss in not covering third party candidates. The American people deserve a voice, not the corporate voices of Obama and McCain. The "twins" are the evil of two lessers. All we are asking is let the 3rd party candidates debate McCain and Obama. PBS should host a debate for all candidates who have support above 1% in polls. More voices will be heard and democracy will take a huge leap forward. Stop the media blackout, cover 3rd parties and let them debate the corporate juggernauts. So far the most successful candidate in garnering votes has been Ralph Nader, even though he has had almost a complete blackout of his campaign by the Main Stream Media (MSM). In fact he's polling at up to 10% in some states like Michigan. Think about if he actually had media coverage! (maybe that's why so much of the corporate-run media is scared) Over at NPR, CNN, Fox and MSNBC every 10th word is either McCain or Obama. MSM why do you waste voters time with lipstick, pit bulls, pigs and other inane distractions? Why not talk about the issues, about defending the constitution and the freedoms it give us. You know, the issues that ACTUALLY matter. Nader's positions on issues are actually supported by the majority of US Americas, yet the US voters don't know it. PBS should do everything in its power to balance the media's coverage. The media's job "should" be to report what is out there and let the people decide, not make a decision for the people. In a real democracy all voices are heard.
Posted:
09/18/08 at
07:54 PM 		timothy edwards : i'm trying to warch the lehr report on cable: channel 10 on charter. the signal (both audio and video)is intermittent; every few seconds the video goes black and the audio stops for a second or so. charter says the problem is you guys. the other two pbs channels i have are showing non political stuff, and have no problem. its as if a monkey, or carl rove, was sitting with a blip button having fun. the same thing happened on pbs political commentary programs in'04 in columbus, ohio. tfe
Posted:
09/18/08 at
08:13 AM 		Shell Rowe : I found this direct link to The Newshour on the main site: It is the feed back form in case the powers that be do not answer that specific question Maureen and others. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/letters.html
Posted:
09/18/08 at
07:42 AM 		Maureen : Just wondered if there will be any response from PBS regarding the numerous comments made here (on the "How are we doing?" section) regarding third party coverage, and representing the public's desire. How do we contact someone directly? Who decides these things? PBS, please include coverage on viable third party candidates' campaigns, and set up a debate yourself so we can hear their views on national television. There is no other way to make an "informed" decision!
Posted:
09/16/08 at
11:12 AM 		poweob : PBS and the rest of the media is complicit it force-feeding the public this apparent lack of choice this election. It's disgraceful. Nader will be getting my vote as will most third party candidates from active thinking/reading politically concerned citizens. The percent vote third parties and independents receive is a direct reflection of how many non partisan hack Americans actually pay attention to what's going on in this country.
Posted:
09/15/08 at
08:42 PM 		Heidi Post : There is nothing wrong with the American people having a CHOICE in who to vote for. As far as I am concerned there should be 20+ choices for president. Why should there be more choices in what toilet paper to buy and only 2 for president. It's upsurd.
Posted:
09/15/08 at
03:19 PM 		Jessica V. Cortez : I'm beyond disappointed with PBS. See what happens when you guys caved and took corporate money? Now you don't have the wherewithal or chutzpah to cover emerging-party/independent candidates? You've lost the admiration of long-time believers of PBS. By the way, I'm sick at the presence of McDonalds and Chuck E. Cheese commercials on PBS Kids. You guys were my last hope at letting my children watch cartoons without growing up commercialized; so that's over. I guess now, we citizens who are for the proliferation of ideas and free speech will have to start up a new, REAL public broadcasting service, since you succumbed to the corruption.
Posted:
09/15/08 at
03:18 PM 		Ross : You did not do a good enough job covering the protests and abuse of protestors. You also did not do a good enough job covering minor party conventions, like the Libertarians and the Greens.
Posted:
09/15/08 at
10:33 AM 		Shell Rowe : I forgot to mention that's little if any differences on ending poverty between the 2 candidates. Both are not willing to create a living wage for its citizens unlike Nader for one who would.
Posted:
09/15/08 at
10:24 AM 		Shell Rowe : In reply to Concerned Voters comments, a third party candidate up to now does has not been able to win cause they have not had fair coverage or debate privileges. Up to a few years ago, a candidate only had to be at 5 percent to be on the debates. But after Perot got millions of votes the ruling changed. Also, in the We coalition there are 4 candidates. Supposedly, many Nader and Cynthia Mckinney. voters would otherwise vote for Obama. Well, to balance out these votes, we have conservative candidates Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin who many people are supporting this election. This country tries to enforce their brand of democracy in other countries while a great many countries have fair elections. If we are to be a true democracy, viable candidates;those that are eligible to be on the majority of ballots should have equal coverage and debate privileges. Also, the 2 candidates are very similar in practiCe on many aspects. MCCain like his Bush and Regan claimed to oppose abortion but like Obama did nothing to make it illegal( Chuck BAldwin would however "Under my administration, we could end legal abortion in a matter of days, not decades. And if Congress refuses to pass Dr. Paul's bill, I will use the constitutional power of the Presidency to deny funds to protect abortion clinics. Either way, legalized abortion ends when I take office." (http://baldwin08.com/Issue-The_Sanctity_of_Life.cfm) Then there's the Patriot act which both Obama and Mcain support. Aslo both McCain and Obama will not end the war immediately unlike Nader, BArr, Mckinney and Baldwin. The 2 covered candidates present rhetoric and hype but lets have the facts of issues covered, thank you.
Posted:
09/15/08 at
09:49 AM 		ConcernedVoter : Dear PBS, You are doing a fine job.A third party candidate cannot win & would only cause the 'good guy' to lose.A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for change...not EXCHANGE...exchange Bush for McSame. Thank you.
Posted:
09/15/08 at
01:56 AM 		JS : Very disappointed that the media is shutting out 3rd party candidates like Ralph Nader. The American people deserve to hear more voices.
Posted:
09/14/08 at
06:32 PM 		Maria Gaglione : I would like to see more coverage of the third party candidates running for 2008 Election. It is my understanding that there is a unity ticket with all the candidates from independent, green, libertarian and constitutional parties on specific issues. It is so important to know what they have to say. I hope to see more about them on the news hour in the coming weeks.
Posted:
09/14/08 at
05:11 PM 		Blonduxo : I wish to echo the numerous comments made herein that challenge PBS on their fairness as demonstrated by the failure to cover the third parties candidates and strong voices of reason (Ron Paul)who talk about the real problems facing America. Issues such as ending foreign wars and global occupation and presence by American forces, the erosion of privacy and implementation of detremental policies such as FISA, the Patriot Act, etc and the unitary presidency, the National debt and the illegal Federal Reserve. Your coverage of the conventions far exceeded the networks and cable offerings but there is more to this election than what the Republicrat duopoly dishes out.
Posted:
09/14/08 at
03:55 PM 		Jennifer Moore : Ralph Nader is a real candidate and needs to be included in ALL the debates. Shame on your lack of reporting the full story!
Posted:
09/14/08 at
11:32 AM 		Mark Hivram : Shame on you! In a time which sees the American people feeling more unrepresented by their leaders than any time in the last 40 years, you could be an example - a model of free debate that would force other mainstream news media to play catch-up. Encouraging a debate including 3rd party candidates may not result in a 3rd party president, but that's not the point. The point is that the frustrated American deserves to look on his/her tv screen and see a candidate bringing issues to the table that have been completely ignored by our two leading candidates. The point is that while the voices of those who would challenge the established corporate-controlled system (on both sides) neither candidate can be expected to challenge themselves. The point is that the Democrats and Republicans have had no serious competition but each other for so long that they have grown fat and corrupt taking turns every few years "leading" this county. They both have a vested interest in perpetuating the majority of the status quo, much of which is unsustainable and corrupt. A debate including candidates who do not answer to big business and do not answer to established party pressure to marginalize themselves (as we have seen both Obama and McCain doing in the past few months) may not result in a 3rd party president, but would hopefully send a message to the ruling parties that the citizens of this country are reaching a point where ignoring our less convenient concerns is no longer an option, no matter who is lining your pockets.
Posted:
09/14/08 at
10:35 AM 		Hive_monkey : Let me add my voice to the choir and criticize your snubbing of 3rd party candidates. I understand that the majority of Americans consider 3rd party candidates to be inconsequential and perhaps even dangerous "spoilers" in a two-party system. This is a misconception that is fueled by ignorance, and that ignorance is caused by the censorship practiced by the mainstream media. C'mon guys, I expect this from Fox News, but I have my entire life believed PBS to be a truly impartial forum. It's disappointing to see your coverage policy falling in line.
Posted:
09/14/08 at
09:21 AM 		Cliff : I thought the DNC, RNC coverage was OK. More time could have been spent on the atmosphere outside the arena. Now, however, there is a real lack of substance and to me this is inherent when focusing on just the two patries, think 'he said, she said' or 'tastes great! less filling!' PLEASE PBS, you are the third party candidate of news TV, accountable to your members and not just the corpporations that control your party. Consider solidarity with the third party candidates, organize a debate, get them on the TV, they have real ideas and the stakes are high. Regardless of your coverage, alternative candidates will be a factor in such a close race, and are polling as such in key states. Ignoring them will not make them go away, and the fear politics of "at least ones better than the other" is not playing with all voters.
Posted:
09/14/08 at
03:36 AM 		Rep for Nader in Florida : Ditto, Ditto, Ditto on this guy's excellent remarks (see below after my comments). When I watch The NewsHour... I noticed CHEVRON is one of your Corporate sponsers ... I question if that's why PBS is not allowed to offer 3rd party and Independent Party coverage? Or is it because PBS is also controlled by our evolving police state. It seems to be some obvious treacherous threats as evidenced from the total black out of Nader/Gonzales Ticket, Green Party ticket and others from all television media???? Does PBS really want to be in solidarity with FOX and the like? It's like Bill Moyers said "THE STAKES HAVE NEVER BEEN HIGHER"! - Get with it or you'll be part of helping "the people" lose their democracy and Country. Maybe if you covered 3rd parties you would have enough public funding so you wouldn't need a CHEVRON sponser. Marlow : The Newshour puppets push the line of the welfare/warfare/corporate/fascist/military-industrial-media complex elite that pull its strings, no different than FOX, MSNBC, CNN. All TV media obediently omit all coverage of any candidates other than those vying for control of the US's one party system, this go around being McBama and O'Cain. And the typical voter - not being as smart as your average rock - dutifully do as instructed by the "respectable" media, and only consider either of the interchangable Repulicrat or Demopublican candidates.
Posted:
09/13/08 at
06:01 PM 		Maureen : I just read someone else's comment, and wanted to add to mine, support for their suggestion of PBS hosting a national debate with all the candidates. What steps would need to be taken to make this happen? It would be historic and change the face of politics in this country. I also agree with some of the others that any candidate who has gone through the rigorous process of getting on enough ballots to win should be included - that seems fair. Please keep the public updated with what is going on with this clearly important issue. Thank you!
Posted:
09/13/08 at
04:10 PM 		Shell Rowe : Please post this feature back on the front page so other viewers can see the comments and respond as well.
Posted:
09/13/08 at
06:33 AM 		yossarian : Not including 3rd party candidates in a national debate is simply one more way of sinking democracy. Citizens deserve to hear all the candidates.
Posted:
09/13/08 at
12:05 AM 		Garrett Lambrev : Evem conservative Time magazine has included Ralph Nader in its list of the most influential Americans of the twentieth century, an individual who has to his credit accomplishments that are the envy of presidents. Yet the Presidential Debate Commission, controlled by apparatchiks of the one party with two faces, will not let him debate. PBS which represents not the parties but the public interest has a signal responsibility to include him in its coverage. Please honor the trust which the citizens of this country have invested you with and make sure that you pay serious attention to what this gentleman has to say about the affairs of our beleaguered republic.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
11:06 PM 		Jim Antaki, PhD : Lipstick!?! Are you serious? Do you think we're all morons? That we could so easily be distracted from real issues that affect our lives, and plague our society? And noticing the fact Mr Nader is a bona-fide candidate... who is on the ballots of 45 states and is polling at over 6% in CNN's own poll? Your irresponsible coverage of this election will only accelerate the inevitable exodus from mainstream media to the internet as the primary purveyor of news.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
11:06 PM 		Jim Antaki, PhD : Lipstick!?! Are you serious? Do you think we're all morons? That we could so easily be distracted from real issues that affect our lives, and plague our society? And noticing the fact Mr Nader is a bona-fide candidate... who is on the ballots of 45 states and is polling at over 6% in CNN's own poll? Your irresponsible coverage of this election will only accelerate the inevitable exodus from mainstream media to the internet as the primary purveyor of news.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
08:59 PM 		Shell Rowe : Several years back, you aired "A Man With a Plan" the inspirational comedy about a man with a fourth grade education that beats many odds. That was just great. well lets show a real life scenario! Thank you!
Posted:
09/12/08 at
02:39 PM 		DYNAMO : Where's the coverage of Ralph Nader? He's a major contender to the 2008 Campaign. He's made it on the ballots of 45 states and is polling @ 6% in Michigan and 4% in N. Hampshire. Let the people hear what a candidate who isn't funded by corporations and endorsed by movie stars has to say. If I had my way, I would have all polititans wear those branded suits that NASCAR drivers use, that way we all really know who we are voting for.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
01:53 PM 		rds : Please cover Ralph Nader. The people have a right to choose. The media decides the election not the people. We came to this country because of democracy... what has happened.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
12:29 PM 		BENNY : Hey PBS,respectfully prove that you aren't just another (less benign) arm of establishment PROPAGANDA,and cover 3rd party candidates.I personally stopped watching the 'NEWS HOUR' a year or so ago,because I prefer the TRUTH.And for that I go to DemocracyNow,Bill Moyers and the INTERNET.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
11:42 AM 		Maureen : PBS: I have always been a fan and supporter of public television (it is the only thing our children watch) and I look to you to present fair, unbiased coverage of all things going on regarding the elections, since you are ostensibly not beholden to corporate sponsors. Please give the viewers what they want and need to see, which is a broad picture of presidential contenders. Ralph Nader (among others, McKinney, Barr) is a legitimate candidate, on the ballot in 45 states, which is not an easy task as a third party, so I am baffled as to why we hear virtually NOTHING about his campaign. The media has the power to turn people's attention to whatever they deem important (Sarah Palin was unknown until weeks ago, and now we know trivial details about her personal life!) so it seems irresponsible to not use that power to fairly present all the choices we have as Americans, so that we may make an informed decision. I have gotten reactions like, "Ralph Nader? Is he running?" And, "Is he still alive?" This is a shame in the "information age". Nader has a solid platform, that converges with what a MAJORITY of Americans want, so why would you, as a neutral news source, NOT highlight those issues for people to assess???? 60% of eligible Americans are not thrilled with their choices, which is a huge number. Those people who are lukewarm about the process and feel that no candidate represents their views ought to know that there ARE candidates who are listening and basing their platform on what the VOTERS want (what a novel idea). PLEASE, PBS, pay more attention to these legitimate candidates, and cover their campaigns with equal time. We are counting on you!
Posted:
09/12/08 at
11:26 AM 		dg : I love PBS.Why haven't you given Ron Paul and Ralph Nader & others, a fair amount of exposure? These guys have had to fight for everything; doesn't the media see we like these people?
Posted:
09/12/08 at
10:43 AM 		orangutan : If the citizenry does not have accurate and comprehensive information, then there is no such thing as an informed opinion, and democracy becomes meaningless. The two things that you need to do are (1) cover important issues and the candidate's stances on them in serious depth, and (2) give voice to the serious alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats, namely Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader. What possible justification could there be for not doing these two things?
Posted:
09/12/08 at
10:09 AM 		Paul Armentor : Please cover Ralph Nader with the same energy and respect you show to Obama and McCain and watch the polling numbers start to change. If you do this, it will be obvious that you rose above the normal multi-decade blackout and played an important role in properly informing the electorate as to it's alternatives. Go for it!
Posted:
09/12/08 at
09:38 AM 		powerob : What does it take for news to actually report news rather than read press releases from campaigns or party representatives such as the Commission on Presidential Debates. The media is failing its duty of being the fourth branch of our government. Ralph Nader's polling significant numbers in the midst of a media blackout and he will be on more ballots than he was in 2000 election. This is shaping up to be another election where they tell Nader he is too irrelevant to be in the debates then will turn around and blame him for being too relevant by effecting the election results. Please do some third party coverage lest we are doomed to 24 hour news coverage of lipstick campaigns.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
08:11 AM 		StephenS : Your coverage of the political campaigns is no better than the other TV media in the US: you pay no attention to third party candidates, even though the two so-called main candidates speak increasingly alike. McCain, who voted with Bush over 90% of the time, is now the agent of change? Obama offers "hope" but keeps changing his position on everything, giving us the choice of tweedle-dee and tweedle dum. Your coverage feeds the lie that the Dems and Reps actually stand for something other than more of the same. I reluctantly accept the greed and ignorance of most of the American electorate, but cannot understand how those whose business is to ferret out the truth can abrogate their responsibility to do so.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
05:03 AM 		David W. Deitch : In the interest of democracy and fair play you need to provide more coverage to third party candidates, especially the leading figure, Ralph Nader. I am voting absentee ballot from France.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
03:02 AM 		Jonathan in Portland-OR : I frequently enjoy PBS, especially the plethora of documentaries, but I am quite disgusted that PBS has made a deliberate effort to limit coverage of the 2008 Presidential race to just the Republican and Democratic Party candidates. I enjoyed watching the DNC and RNC via C-Span, CNN, etc. and try to stay well informed. However, I am increasingly becoming frustrated by what I see—or more importantly, what I don’t see. I will admit to being very enthusiastic with Obama at first, but with his selection of Joe Biden as the VP choice and a continuous dilution of his primary rhetoric to more centrist positions, I feel alienated. Am I supposed to believe that I have only two choices? As a Democrat I will probably reconcile and stick with Obama, but I am quite riled by the same routine I saw in 2000 and 2004. When it comes to third-party candidates, I am starting to agree more and more with their uniform claim that they are being denied virtually any mainstream media coverage. What I once took as a little whining and paranoid delusions are becoming increasingly credible. Although I was surprised that even Lou Dobbs offered a little coverage, it's a sad day when PBS is little better than the FOX News/MSNBC/etc. mainstream news services. Alternative news services like DemocracyNow! and international news services like the Guardian UK, CBC (Canada), etc are increasingly taking priority over NPR, OPB and PBS. I’m not asking for much, just what most Americans seem to feel they are entitled: an unfiltered look at the candidates and the election, whereby we hear all the candidates and make a decision based on the facts. If these third-party candidates really aren’t serious choices and present themselves with quixotic positions and deranged ideas then they will be “weeded-out” by the voting public—just like the party primaries weeded-out flakier choices like Mike Gravel (D—now I/Lib) and Fred Thompson (R). By presenting only two candidates you are doing the public a disservice and it might easily be perceived as a paternalistic stance of censoring and unfairly influencing the public’s choice for president. I’d like to see Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Brian Moore etc. get some air time, even if I don’t agree with them. As for the debates, when 1--5% of the national vote should be attending the debates. Now whenever I see a nationwide survey, I have to wonder why the combined percentage of support for Obama or McCain rarely passes 87%. Are that many Americans really “undecided” or supporting someone else—and why isn’t this being discussed? Like I said, I’m more than a little riled, I’m disgusted.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
02:03 AM 		Lyle : Shame on you PBS for undermining Democracy in America by not including election coverage of all the candidates.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
01:52 AM 		AG : One of the reasons this country is becoming a third world country is because of the lack of third party candidates by the mainstream press. Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney are legitimate candidates with critical statements, and not publishing them is a matter of national security. It will continue the trend to becoming a police state unless voices like these get published in mainstream press (including PBS). You cannot have a corrupted government without a corrupted press. We have a corrupted government. www.NotOneMore.US
Posted:
09/12/08 at
01:29 AM 		Ed Brandt, Ph.D. : The only programs I watched regularly are Jim Lehrer's News Hour and BBC World News. But you are not serving the public by failing to provide much more coverage about Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin. These candidates cumulatively have the support of 10% of those who vote, despite an almost total blackout by the self-censoring media, including PBS. This self-censorship also totally ignores the large number of Jewish and non-Jewish groups who advocate true and just independence of Palestine, e.g., Rabbi Michael Lerner, who publishes Tikkun and often mentions Christians and Muslims who also advocate a just peace. (I have never seen any coverage anywhere which covers the key items on which the four mentioned candidates, including both the four items on which they all agree (as well as their differences on issues or their emphasis) are running. But at least 90% of mostly poor non-voters in need of government assistance don't vote because they see no difference in their often miserable lives, regardless of whether the Democrats or Republicans win. Widespread stereotypes are usually false and derogatory terms like "spoilers" ignore the fact that the right of voters to vote as they please (or to regret how they voted) are the essence of democracy. I was a liberal Republican who served in the US Foreifn Service and in Minesota's former non-partisan legislature. I was a pioneer advocate of civil rights, an early supporter of environmental protection and, above all, an advocate of the needy. I also cherished traditional moral values, such as the importance of keeping families together (harmed greatly by no-fault divorce), considering compassion as the highest moral value and a tee-taller. But all of that ended with the end of the Cold War, since Clinton and G.W. Bush were the worst presidents we had, at least since Coolidge (the real architect of the Great Depression). But I despised Reagan's economic policies and regretted the failure of George H. W. Bush to support his true values in deference to the Reaganites. Since 1992 I have voted for Perot, Nader or cast a write-in ballot. Thus the notion that Nader hurts the Democrats more than the Republicans is false, just as is the notion that other "minor" candidates (who actually would be major candidates if the received fair media) hurt either major party is an offensive and anti-democratic perspective for those who believe that democracy means more than the secret ballot and fair counting of those votes in Iran and Russia.
Posted:
09/12/08 at
12:42 AM 		Publia Padena : I enjoyed your convention coverage. I hope you will cover the serious 3rd party candidate, Ralph Nader, as well. Additional viewpoints are in the best interests of the American people and I would like to hear more. I would also like to see at least one debate where we have more than Republicans and Democrats.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
11:40 PM 		Derek R : Please cover Ralph Nader and other 3rd party candidates! Denying these candidates, all on enough state ballots to theoretically win, media coverage makes a mockery of our "democracy". The Dems and Reps control the debates and are subjecting the American people to a no choice election once again. PBS is no better than the corporate cable networks if they don't extensively cover the 3rd party candidates as well. Another 8-16 years of the same 2 parties running the show and this country is finished.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
10:51 PM 		Eliza : Where is your campaign coverage for the rest of the presidential candidates PBS? Aren't you supposed to be presenting all of those running for office, not just the NWO selected two? Where is your equal time for Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, you know, the same Ron Paul who is on the ballot in several states, Chuck Baldwin and Alan Keyes? How about sponsoring a series of REAL debates??? Please put our tax funded airtime to better use. Invite ALL the candidates. I like the empty chairs idea mentioned for Obama and McCain, should they prove themselves to be elitist noshows. Empty chairs for empty suits! How about reviewing some of the exciting rallies and conventions, the town hall meetings of these third parties and the numerous events from the archives of the Ron Paul Republican Party. Find those on http://www.CampaignforLiberty.com. You have a lot of catching up to do PBS, having presented only republican-democrat conventions, and many weeks of their hoopla. This is only one side of the campaign. You take our tax money. You want our donations. Yet, so far, you're a noshow. Where are the rest of the candidates?
Posted:
09/11/08 at
09:47 PM 		Dr : I think you are doing a grave disservice to our country by not providing more in depth coverage of the third party candidates and their unique point of view. People like Paul and Nader who are each starting to Poll 5-10 percent in swing states should be allowed into the democratic commons. By ignoring them you willfully choose to be political bigots. Why don't you do a poll of your viewers to see how many people want more coverage of third party points of view?
Posted:
09/11/08 at
09:41 PM 		NPT : Please include Nader and other candidates in your coverage. You become much less credible when you pretend that there are only two options for President.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
09:21 PM 		Josh from Michigan : PBS stands for PUBLIC!!! broadcasting corporation. The public wants 3rd parties in the debates. All media that consistently deny coverage to 3rd party candidates are complicit in denying democracy to America. 3rd parties do not spoil elections, the two-party corporatocracy and the mainstream media spoil our elections and thus our democracy. I have lived in two foreign countries, Finland and Chile, and am saddened to bear witness to the fact that the USA has a democracy of far less strength.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
08:43 PM 		John : Cynthia McKinney and Nader must be included in all valid commentary and reporting on the 2008 Presidential race. Today, I heard a story on Michigan, where McCain and Obama are virtually tied. Even though the story claimed that a small town could swing the whole state, there was NO MENTION of Nader, who is today at 6% in Michigan. Censorship or incompetence in reporting, I do not know. John M. Wages, Jr. US House of Representatives, MS-01 www.VoteJohnWages.com
Posted:
09/11/08 at
07:16 PM 		paul siemering : There are two really urgent issues that need attention. First there are the endless wars being waged by the U.S. Ms. Palin has heard from God that killing Iraqis is what he wants. I'm not sure about Afghans, but my guess is he likes that too. So i need to know if the woman is hearing voices. And I think that's a fair question. Also God wants her to drill the Alaskan wildlife refuge, or anywhere else. But no alternative or renewable energy. Just as urgent is the need to stop talking about the idiotic trivia that has been the exclusive focus so far. Hockey momism is no an issue. Family is not. Moose hunting is not.Ask her which Iraq war lies she likes best- the one about the weapons, or the ties to al-Qaeda,and therefore to 9/11. Ask Obama why he wants more mayhem in Afghanistan, if the civilian deaths so far are not more than enough.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
06:52 PM 		R Krause : My message didn't go through becuase I've "sent too many comments." This is the first time I have been to this website!
Posted:
09/11/08 at
06:49 PM 		R. Krause : In a country of 300 million people we have only two candidates for president, one who endorses a 100 year war in Iraq, if that's what it takes, and the other who wants to win a war in Afghanistan. Please include third party candidate so Americans don't have to be wedged between the criminality of two illegal and unconstitutional wars. Why not let Nader speak?
Posted:
09/11/08 at
06:13 PM 		Alex in Idaho : Your coverage of the duopoly perpetuates a fraud on the American people when you exclude other candidates from the discussion. As an independent voter, I watched quite a bit of your coverage of both conventions but had to turn elsewhere when I wanted coverage of Nader's super-rallies and other third-party goings-on in the host cities. This blackout does a major disservice to the American public and PBS/NPR/CPB will get no pledge money from me as long as it only gives any substantial coverage to candidates from the two parties who have spoiled so much of our political system. Rather than your paternalistic filtering, I want you to give all candidates, or at least those candidates on enough ballots to win, equal coverage and let the voters decide. Although I used to have a lot of respect for Gwen Ifill, I now consider her complicit in this fraud for hosting the VP debates put on by the sham Commission on Presidential Debates. I encourage Ms. Ifill to tell the CPD to jump in a lake. She should contact the League of Women voters and work to bring back non-partisan (not just bi-partisan) debates for Americans. If this election is so important, Americans should get a full hearing of all the issues and all our choices.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:47 PM 		JBlotz : How about PBS sponsoring a debate on their own, inviting Obama, McCain, Nader, Barr, Balwin & McKinney. Then have two empty chairs for Obama and McCain if they are afraid to debate. Let the candidates ask a few questions of the other candidates.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:40 PM 		Please Cover 3rd Parties! : I found your coverage of the conventions to be excellent, but now I'm asking you to PLEASE cover the 3rd party candidates and do everything in your power to get them in the debates. Why shouldn't the American people be allowed to see a debate among ALL the candidates? As Ralph Nader has said, if his run for presidency is so insignificant that it doesn't deserve media coverage, then how is it that the Democrats blame him for "spoiling" elections? Can't have it both ways. Please help educate the voters by hosting a debate with all the candidates.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:37 PM 		John : Coverage of politicians making clever statements with not real content is not really coverage. The two parties have become extremely adept at saying nothing, but making it sound important. That's why they've agreed to block out third parties. Open the debates for Ralph Nader. His approach is consistently based on an actual platform with substantive planks. This fact, of course, is why McCain/Obama do their best to ignore him. They certainly don't want to debate him in front of the American people. Please, rather than devoting untold resources to meaningless rallys full of platitudes, do a story on the changes in the political process, including WHO controls the discourse, in the media, and in the two corporate parties.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:34 PM 		Art Delgado : The lack of coverage for Ralph Nader--and all third party candidates--is disturbing, does not educate voters, and it allows the so-called "major" candidates to get away with mindless "lip stick on a pig" squabbles while the major issues in this nation go unaddressed. While I have come to expect corporate media outlets to fail in their fourth estate obligations to our republic, I expected more from public media. I guess real public discorse is dead, and the fourth estate is now little more than lipstick on a pig.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:33 PM 		Buk : Sad... While the PBS stations are looking for more funds for programing "for the people", the lack of equal{or any} time for third party canditates is a sham. I'll not be sending donations until this changes. I think that I'll send it to Ralph Nader instead. By the way... Why wouldn't we vote for someone who DOESN"T OWE ANYBODY ANY FAVORS???
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:25 PM 		mimi : Please provide 3rd party coverage!! Where is Ralph Nader, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and all the other candidates? Until we have a multiple party system we will never have a true democracy. Until the media ALLOWS us to see and hear the many other points of view being offered we will never really have a choice and therefore we will never have health care, education and our civil rights protected. Please PBS allow us to hear all of our options.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:15 PM 		Richard Dubin : Never before in the modern history of this nation has the need for third party representation been greater than it is today. With both major parties become beholden to those who provide the ever increasing need for money to buy elections the presence of third party candidates pledged to shun such donations is essential to our continued democracy. I would beg you to provide coverage for those candidates who work diligently for our nation and do so handicapped by the blackout of their efforts by the media.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
05:07 PM 		Tony : The whole truth and nothing but the truth.Everything else is opinion and you know what they say about opinions
Posted:
09/11/08 at
01:29 PM 		oakknot : Though I didn't watch News Hour, I can fully believe that PBS (along with the rest of Mainstream Media) would MARGINALIZE any third party candidate for the same lame reasons MSM does: they don't have enough money. Thanks to the Corporate Sponsorship of PBS, anyone who doesn't have several million dollars in campaign funds and also is focused on anything other than Business As Ususal is automaticaly disinvited, uninvited, and generally marninalized from any sort of meaningful coverage. I'm not merely talking about Nader. McKinney-Clemente is the Green Party President/VP pick-I TRULY doubt that PBS has even mentioned this pair, let along had them on News Hour for a meaningful interview/debate. Dennis Kucinichg had the same pox on him: MSM (including PBS) refused to give him any time, but his sin was denouncing the Corporate Sponsors of PBS et al and proclaiming PEACE as a Vital Need for The World. The U.S. SHOULD BE leading the way to a Peaceful World. But alas, none of the networks of MSM will have any of it. Don't contact me begging for funds; they will be sqandered.
Posted:
09/11/08 at
11:14 AM 		Nate in NH : Many say politics is about compromise, your glancing mention of Rep. Paul yesterday missed the whole point, and continued marginalization of 3rd party candidates is compromising our democracy. At least 3 third party candidates from opposite ends of the spectrum came together to agree on the most important issues of today. Each has enough ballot access to win the election and deserves your coverage. I believe Mr. Shields would agree they should be permitted to debate and add to the scope of our civic discussion. Living in northern NH, I watch CBC News. Please take a cue from them, as no one expects the Green, NDP or Bloc Quebec candidate to win, the Canadian society is better off for the fair inclusion and diversity of opinion gained by coverage of all candidates and open debates. As we can see in the corporate media, focus on two front runners with little substantive difference is bound to deteriorate into coverage of churches, lipstick and lappel pins. Thank you.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
10:59 PM 		Tolli : You really need to cover the third party debates and the event like the Campaign for Liberty held today with Ron Paul, Nader, Baldwin and McKiney. Those 4 people agreed on 4 base principals to challenge the primary parties with. This needs to be covered. The 4 agreements need to be published and discussed. Go forth and investigate.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
10:33 PM 		Priscilla : Coverage has not been complete. Where is coverage on 3rd parties? The American people deserve to hear all candidates and make an informed choice. No more two party only choice(?)! Americans are tired of being bullied by this "two" party system that is leading us down the wrong path toward facism/socialism/communism!!
Posted:
09/10/08 at
09:02 PM 		Nathan : For as fair and unbiased as PBS claims to be I can't help but wonder why they not only chose to not cover any 3rd party conventions, but failed to even mention the happenings in the 3rd party camps.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
09:01 PM 		Your former contributor : Not covering other candidates is a shame. As a former contributor, I regretted that we send our hard-earned dollars to you. From now on, I am going to persuade as many people as I can NOT to contribute anything to you.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
06:47 PM 		Gordon : There is no reason that Nader rallys have not been covered. It started as a small movement that has gained a lot of momentum. Please start covering Ralph Nader and Ron Paul for that matter. Third party candidates should be an option. Please do not silence the voices of the Americans that are tired of the same retoric from the Rebublicans and the Democrats.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
02:10 PM 		Shell Rowe : Its curious that after several posts have been made regarding the unequal representation of the presidential candidates that now the section of "Have Your Say: Political Convention Coverage" is now not advertised on the main site. Why is that .Do you feel that other viewers will also be critical of your coverage process and lack of even though you specifically asked:"Do you think the coverage has been appropriate? Has the NewsHour done its job or done too much? What about other networks and media outlets?" This is another example of PBS/ The Newshour at an attempt to silence the voices of the political nonconformers.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
12:18 PM 		Justin Jeffre : You do our country a great disservice by excluding the only candidates that represent the views of millions of Americans. Ralph Nader held "Open the Debates" counter rallies during the DNC and RNC that had big names like Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Ventura etc . and you didn't bother to cover them. You should take the "Public" out of PBS because you don't represent the public interest while you use our public airwaves. History won't judge you well!
Posted:
09/10/08 at
12:11 PM 		montag : There was a time when the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour was the only news show I would watch. I continued to be a regular viewer when Jim Lehrer took over the program, but in recent years the broadcast has gone steadily downhill and I now find myself watching Jeopardy more often than the News Hour. How can you call yourselves journalists when you're not covering third-party candidates like Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Bob Barr? I fully expect CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox to exclude these candidates since the mainstream media is controlled by the corporations that the third-party candidates are so valiantly railing against, but PBS? You are supposed to be Public Television broadcasting in the public interests. That means keeping the public informed. In this, you have failed miserably. Give Nader and the other candidates a voice!
Posted:
09/10/08 at
11:15 AM 		boo PBS : I used to watch your shows, until I realized that you are nowhere near fair and balanced. You consistently left out news regarding 3rd party candidates. I get my news now from various sources on the Internet. I can no longer trust anything I hear/read and its very saddening.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
09:40 AM 		Paula : There are 3 infomative programs that I watch on PBS POV, Bill Moyers, Wide Angle. And I am amazed that your Corporate Sponsers let you get away with that much honesty. Your entertainment programing is great. Your news coverage laughable. You call yourselves "public", so where is that coverage? I hear mostly the same corporate proganda that I can get on the cable stations (just longer versions of selected portions of it) and the only Presidential Candidates that I have head from on PBS are 2. Where is the coverage of Nader, McKinney, Barr, Baldwin? Nader is on the ballot in 45 states is a write in candidate in 5 more, but I didn't learn that on the "Public Station" Your political coverge shows corporate control firmly in place, not public. Just what portion of your programing does the public pay for? I have heard enough about Obama and McCain. I want to know more about Nader, Barr, Mckinny, Baldwin. I expect to get that information on my "PUBLIC" Station. Why don't you hold a debate that includes all the candidates. If McCain and Obama don't show up...so what, the public will learn more about the others.
Posted:
09/10/08 at
09:32 AM 		Craig C : To the candidates. Please stop the negative ads and give us your reforms. Oh yea what happened to Social Security reforms?
Posted:
09/10/08 at
09:16 AM 		People : It is a shame on America and a shame on Democracy that Ralph Nader is virtually excluded by the national news coverage! What are you afraid of? The candidate or the People?
Posted:
09/10/08 at
02:25 AM 		Maureen Sheimo : In an America with liberty and justice for all, the people's Public Broadcasting Service would host open balanced Presidential and Vice-Presidential debates including all of the party and independent candidates who have qualified for the ballot. They wouldn't be hosted by the milk toast softballers Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifil but by Bill Moyers and Tom Broccacio who demonstrate on a weekly basis how to conduct and present invesigative journalism. It is shameful that your comprehensive coverage of the Democratic and Republican conventions excluded the thousands of conscientious citizens outside the auditoriums and the outrageous black boot tactics of the "Homeland Security forces". Your failure to report on the frightening violations of the freedom of the press, calls into question your status as an ethical public news institution. Obviously, you feel bound to comply with the demands of your corporate sponsors and the corporate Congress, but don't you have children and grandchildren too? Don't you ever lay awake at night wondering what will happen to this nation and the planet if we fail to break the deathgrip of the fascist Republocrats and their spiraling greed and violence? At this critical moment for our nation, wouldn't this be a good time to declare your independence and place the needs of people above the needs of the sociopathic corporations?
Posted:
09/10/08 at
01:11 AM 		ShiftThePower : This is public television, right? How dare you give unequal coverage to all publicly funded candidates. The American people deserve to hear from all the candidates they are paying for. Nader, Barr, McKinney and Baldwin are all out there campaigning, addressing the needs and rights of the people. Wed.Sept. 10th they're going to come together in an uprecedented way in a press conference with Ron Paul. What a great opportunity to get started giving them the coverage they deserve, and we deserve.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
11:04 PM 		Sgt Harold Tottem : There are no words to describe the depth of my absolute disrespect for your "news" show. Excrement comes to mind. You've never done a day of hard work in your lives, obviously. Only when you stop caving in and giving a voice to those who need and deserve it least - the two terrorist political regimes which tyrranize this country - and make up for your ways by devoting full coverage to the Cynthia McKinney / Rosa Clemente and Ralph Nader / Matt Gonzalez campaigns (and others, such as a pro-animal rights party, like the Dutch have) can you call yourself a news hour offering objective news.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
09:35 PM 		Marlow : The Newshour puppets push the line of the welfare/warfare/corporate/fascist/military-industrial-media complex elite that pull its strings, no different than FOX, MSNBC, CNN. All TV media obediently omit all coverage of any candidates other than those vying for control of the US's one party system, this go around being McBama and O'Cain. And the typical voter - not being as smart as your average rock - dutifully do as instructed by the "respectable" media, and only consider either of the interchangable Repulicrat or Demopublican candidates.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
08:38 PM 		nader paul kucinich gravel : The National Press Club. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney ventura perot charts rage
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
06:48 PM 		Leslie Webb : Why does the media ignore third party candidates and give millions of free dollars in coverage to the Democratic and Republican candidates? Take all the candidates who are on enough state ballots to be able to win the electoral college vote. Cover these candidates equally and fairly for two months and then see who is ahead in the polls.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
06:13 PM 		Jive Dadson : Both parties set up a virtual police state to corral and imprison protesters and even reporters. How much coverage did PBS give to that?
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
06:06 PM 		Jive Dadson : Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty had a rally across the river from the GOP convention. It drew 12,000 enthusiastic supporters. How much coverage did PBS give to that?
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
06:02 PM 		Jive Dadson : PBS does its part in perpetrating the political stranglehold that the two big parties have on this country. PBS has a veneer of intelligence that the likes of Fox News lack, but blather is blather and complicity is complicity. Whether the reporting comes with proper grammar and complete sentences, or with flashy graphics, yelling, and swooshing noises, the country is ill served by acquiescence to the duopoly that is utterly destroying it. There is no voice for small government and liberty.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
05:57 PM 		Jim : Although not surprised, I am disappointed there was not more coverage on two very telling aspects of both conventions: 1) the extent to which corporations funded and lobbied delegates, and 2) the police action taken against journalists attempting to report on relevant issues, albeit ones the party leaders don't want to expose.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
03:24 PM 		More voices : Why have Nader, McKinney, and Barr been excluded from any coverage at PBS? It's this a form of political bigotry, isn't it? Nader is blamed for costin Gore the Presidency, but these same people insist his campaign is "insignificant." Which is it? Political bigotry.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
03:19 PM 		gov4corporadoes : NEWS FLASH! Presidential candidates Nader, McKinney, and Barr are personae non grata at PBS, given its refusal to recognize these candidates' right to be heard. PBS practices political bigotry of a sort. Why, I'd like to know, since each of them will be on enough state ballots to represent a significant voting bloc and each having the potential to WIN the presidency. Nader 8% could explode into the 20% range with regular exposure, given any kind of fair treatment. The latter fact is likely the reason why PBS quakes at the very mention of the names Nader, McKinney, and Barr. Oh, I'm sure we'll hear their names at PBS at some point or other but it will happen "with the proper frame," using demeaning or self-fulling mild epithets. PBS is consistent. Too bad it's consistently anti-democratic.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
01:56 PM 		Susan : I, for one, stopped watching any of the network coverage of the conventions because I quickly tired of the long-winded comments of the commentators, especially the hot-headed crew on MSNBC (and not just Matthews and Olbermann). After a while, they repeated themselves for lack of new information. CSPAN and the Lehrer show gave me just enough analysis.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
12:31 PM 		Oregon viewer : I was discouraged to see continuous commentary dominated by white males. This was most obvious after Hillary Clinton's speech and six men commented before going to the female reporter on the floor of the convention. I would like to have heard from more women and more people of other color. It's time for PBS to get with the times and open up!
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
10:08 AM 		Shell Rowe : PBS puts out many wonderful programs aimed at specific groups and people. Why not then host the independent conventions which millions of citizens/ voters are involved in and affected by? Also, when doing the republican and democratic conventions, polling figures were brought up continuously, however, no mention of the independent polling. Therefore, a complete coverage of the elections are not being offered. Please listen to the voices of the millions that are supporting/ voting for 3rd party candidates as well as those who are dissatisfied with the two candidates that the major networks including yours are showing and would support a viable 3rd party candidate like Ralph Nader!
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
09:39 AM 		Nicolas Lomas : It is rediculous that PBS would think that everyone is either democrat or repbulican. There are better options out there than the current one party system. I feel it is very biased of PBS not to give any of the third party candidates any air time so that they can give their views. I use to be a democrat then a republican and the more I learn about them the less I trust them and the more I want to vote for third parties. I am now with the constitution party which I believe stands for truth and not for B.S. that democrats and republicans dish out. Why don't the dem's and repub's write an essay on where they stand on the issues. This way the american people can see if they actually have a good plan or a bad one. If democrats and republicans can't discuss the issues, then they are unworthy of running our country. Nicolas
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
04:34 AM 		gina : Shields and Brooks, a panel of historians, and The Newshour gang in full force for two weeks?! What's not to love? The return to standard fundraiser programming has never felt so painful. Cheers for airing the full speeches and for providing a functional environment for well-rounded commentary. I must admit my bias: I find the network coverage appallingly inadequate. thanks for your help in maintaining my faith in humanity. P.S. Would also have enjoyed hearing more about the events and shenanigans going on outside the auditoriums, but I understand that may require us to donate more money.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
04:19 AM 		Barbara and John : We watch from Australia and found the conventions interesting. So different from the way we do it here.
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
12:27 AM 		Stuart : We watched CNN during the Democratic Convention. They were good in many respects, but we got tired of missing speakers we at least wanted to hear some of, as well as some of the things going on in the hall. For the Republican Convention, we switched to News Hour and were delighted at the mix you provided. Admittedly, Daniel Brooks and Mark Shields aren't as pretty as Campbell Brown and Donna Brazile, but Jim Lehrer can, unlike Wolf, ask questions of a reporter or interviewee without a monologue that answers the question he asked. Hats off to your team! Now, if you can just get that interview with Sarah . . .
Posted:
09/ 9/08 at
12:20 AM 		Sandra : I watched the Democrat & Republican Conventions from a far (in Australia). We only got an hour each night but it was organised to cover the main speakers. I found the coverage fascinating. Please allow me as an outsider to make some comments. 1 I was so impressed with Michelle Obama's speech. 2 I watched carefully as the cameras panned the audience. At the Republican convention I could count on one hand the number of African Americans. Is this a fair representation of a party that supposedly wants to govern all the American people? 3 Forget the racist and feminist bias, my opinion is purely ageist. At 72 John Mc Cain is too old.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
10:36 PM 		Kerrygold : I thought your coverage of the conventions was the best of all the others. For me there was no possibility of stomaching the others, in fact. I am always shocked when I inadvertently am exposed to other news broadcasts than the News Hour because they are so vapid, superficial, etc. I came to this site tonight, however, because I am so distressed at the outright lies that are being uttered by Palin especially, and if I hear from John McCain once more that he is a maverick-well, what can I say? The man has completely capitulated to the "base" and it really is BASE in the true sense of the word. I only hope that this time the American people will take the time to read and inform themselves of the facts, and maybe tune in to the News Hour rather than the other newscasts that are devoid of any real information.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
10:33 PM 		coast11 : I like the "behind the scenes" look at how the election campaigns work. It is easy to find out where a candidate stands on the issues, but to see how strategy is being applied is fascinating and sharpens my critical thinking skills. Most importantly is that most of your contributors can disagree without loosing their temper and shouting at each other.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
09:16 PM 		Victoria Horton : I really enjoy listening to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. It is the only time I can really hear a Republican opinion. I am a Democrat but I want to know what the Republicans think on important issues. I think that citizens should understand both sides of an argument even if, ultimately, they must choose how they feel about a certain issue. The problem is that the Republicans always seem so angry that it is hard to know what they are thinking. Democrats and Republicans do not communicate with each other. I want to listen to what the Republicans have to say, but so often I cannot because they are yelling. David Brooks is a Godsend to the Republican Party in this way. I can listen to what he says. I don't always agree with him - that's true - but it is the only time I can really listen to the other side. Most of the time, I agree with Shields but I like to hear what Brooks has to say.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
08:00 PM 		Lyle S. Chapman : I watched the News Hour tonight and was very disappointed that most of the reporting on the presidential campaign was concerned with the mechanics and horse race aspects of it. Please, PLEASE do not waste our time in this way,and use your opportunity to serve the country by presenting us with accurate and factual information about the candidates and their positions on the issues.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
07:19 PM 		Lois Phemister : Thank you for the excellent coverage of the conventions. The three historians were terrific. They were thought-provoking, humorous, and informative. Shields and Brooks are always level-headed and honest in their reflections. Obviously each has a preferred way to look at the world that can be different from the other. Never the less, they are willing to admit when the other one has a good point. When they disagree they are polite about it with no demonstrative contortions to register their disagreement. They are pleasant. They are a model in how political dialogue should take place. Thanks, keep it up. We will keep tuning in.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
06:13 PM 		Matthew Kucera : As a general observation on this year's election coverage, three of the four main media forums for coverage (tv, online, and radio - newspaper I can't comment on as I haven't subscribed in awhile) are structured to provide only scant space for developed and reasoned discussion of election topics (NewsHour being the exception). For the online forum, I typically read news articles and have the option to respond in small thread comments (such as this one). But I contend it is virtually impossible for such a structure to support reasoned discussion, as it is virtually impossible to state any type of useful reasoning about politics in such a small comment window. Usually the comments only support partisan bickering. Such bickering seems more prolific these days and I wonder if this is partly due to the dearth of suitable forums for hearing discussion and debate between the various sides. For TV and Radio, there is the well known problem of opinionated news taking the stage vs. impartial interviews or civil discussions. In this day and age, it seems there should be more forums allocating space for a level of discussion that is healthy enough to weed out bickering. I agree with all the commentors here that the NewsHour coverage of the election has been superb. I boldly (and naively) request, could the NewsHour do investigation into what kind of effect the structure of the news forums of this day and age are having on how we (the American people) develop understanding of political issues, as compared to how such understanding was developed in the past (i.e. before internet and/or TV)? Or could somebody kindly point me to research done in this area? I ask here because the NewsHours is one of the few sources of news I have found I can trust.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
04:02 PM 		Susan : I'd like to thank you for your coverage of both conventions. I appreciated the fact that your reporters and commentators would actually stop talking and allow viewers to hear most of the speeches, whether they were well-known politicians or regular Americans. Your show continues to set the standard for reporting the news. Thanks again.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
02:32 PM 		Jon Ralston : I do not understand why PBS and the media in general feel it's appropriate to give free coverage to the Democrats and the Republicans while giving no coverage to Ralph Nader, the Green Party (Cynthia Mckinney), the Libertarian Party (Bob Barr), or the Constitution Party (Chuck Baldwin). I'm sure people in the media will argue that these candidates are not significant, but then they refer to Ralph Nader and other third party candidates like Ross Perot as spoilers. If they are significant enough to be labeled as spoilers then they are significant enough to be covered so that the American people have a choice come election time.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
12:38 PM 		kathy : I'm in agreement with those who want to know where your profiles and comments for Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are! Polling at more than 10% combined this is the elephant in the room being ignored. I don't want to hear that Nader spoiled the Democrats chances if you won't even treat him a a canidate. And dito for Barr. What kind of a democracy are we running here. We want to export democracy all over the world but we can't even prove we have it here. You give lip service to fairness and balance but in reality don't practice it. I am heartily ashamed of "Public" broadcasting and will no longer support it with my patronage or dollars.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
12:08 PM 		David M. Weiby : Please send me a copy of your mission statement. I wish to analyze your convention coverage in view of your expressed goals. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
12:06 PM 		margie bodley : I was horrified that my favorite guy Bill Moyers would have Kathleen Jamison on spewing the wonders of Sarah Palin. I have completely lost confidence in Jamison. She is obvioiusly a Republican and does not deserve to be on the Bill Moyers show. What was he thinking? She was defending Sarah Palin, a right wing extremest, who would like nothing more than to have our democracy turned into a theocracy. Moyers just sat there. Where is this heading? Even PBS turns on Obama. God help us! I will never feel the same about the Bill Moyers show sad to say. Now where do we go to get the moral compass we need so desperately. Margie Bodley
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
09:13 AM 		Jon-E : I understand your organization claims to be none partisan with regards political candidates so though you have mentioned code pink being at the demonstrations outside the heavily policed and fortified conventions which seems to of been over the top for a democracy and more Akin to a authoritarian society like Russia but perhaps more like China in the way the people who wanted their voices to be heard, were not. The Nader/Gonzalez, Ron Paul, And green parties were holding conventions and talks in the same cities but you have quietly sidelined these emerging and important parties to all Americans, so much so that the people are wondering weather they really have any choices?. All so i would like to complain about the Iraq Veterans for peace trying to send a written message to the two conventions without success not being covered and how unembeded journalists were targeted and arrested by the conventions police and security services. These disgraces against truth and civil liberties not to mention the constitution should of been covered and show you up for what you really are, a masquerade for the Dems and Rep parties. i very much doubt you will publicise this.
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
09:12 AM 		BarbFD : I just wanted to know why Gwen Ifil had such a distasteful expression on her face, on camera, right after the end of Sarah Palin's address at the RNC? I thought her mannerisms were totally unprofessional, at best. Thanks. Barb
Posted:
09/ 8/08 at
08:46 AM 		Marta : I was waiting for you to show more of what was happening outside the RNC. We got so little if any coverage of that in the regular media, but the blogs are painting a more sinister picture. Please, do an objective report of what was happening outside both conventions: police actions, blockades, etc.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
11:36 PM 		Grounded In Reality : I recorded your convention coverage hoping to see all of the candidates, at least the top ones, and was sadly disappointed to see no coverage at all of one of the most important and influential candidates this country has ever had! The one candidate that is far and above better than the others, is Ralph Nader (and running mate Matt Gonzalez), but there seems to be a media blackout on him, yet he is a real and viable candidate that has many decades of experience in politics and government, has done countless wonderful things for this country, there is too much to list here, suffice it to say Time Magazine named him as one of the 100 Most Influential Americans in the Twentieth Century, and he is gaining alot of popularity, even confirmed by polls, even with the media blackout! So, I appreciate that you are covering the conventions, but you are not covering the candidates! What is the point? It is so very important to show candidates speaking on TV because that is probably the most important way to reach people, even with the internet nowadays, as great as it is, not everyone has a computer and an internet connection. If anyone were to read the websites of all of the candidates, including Ralph Nader, I can't imagine why anyone wouldn't decide that Ralph Nader and Matt Gonzalez are the no-brainer clear choice, they are head and shoulders above their so-called competition that it is like the difference between night and day. They have great policies and are honest to boot, unlike the other candidates who have some so-so policies but have already proven themselves to be liars by their past actions. It would be a run away election, Nader/Gonzalez would probably get at least 90% of all the votes. And, of course, the current "democratic" and "republican" candidates claim to agree with the good values that this country stands for, all the while simultaneously ripping off the american people behind their backs by implementing bad policies, and doing all sorts of unthinkably bad things, making life much more horrible than it already is for this country, and for future generations as well, directly defying what the people want. The state of this country nowadays is deplorable, not counting the elite wealthy ~10%. There is so much needless suffering, just because of a bunch of media-hijacking rascals, whom, when someone(s) good gets enough power, will be thrown in jail, to the delight of all of the american people when they learn of the rascals' wrongdoings via major national television networks. So, censoring the TV so that the best candidates get no coverage, that is just an awful crime on the american people, and a total disrespect of everything good that this country stands for. I am disappointed in you PBS, I was hoping you would be unbiased. Shame on you, PBS, for being a pawn in the war on the American people, shame on you.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
11:12 PM 		WALT : WITH ALL THE TALK ABOUT CHANGE COMING FROM BOTH POLITICAL PARTYS WHAT ARE THE CHANCES THE AMERICAN VOTER IS GOING TO GET SHORT CHANGED IN THE END????? THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
11:03 PM 		WALT : WITH ALL THE TALK ABOUT CHANGE COMING FROM BOTH POLITICAL PARTYS WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF THE AMERICAN
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
11:00 PM 		Blackcatsoda : I am disappointed to find that the same verse is being repeated in one of the most sacred places in Television, PUBLIC TELEVISION. Now it appears you have joined the Corporate Sponsored programs. We already had the cheerleaders at Good Morning America, NOW the public television fields are also becoming complacent and allowing only what is already being shown 24/7 for the public indoctrination. Get Ralph Nader on. This is a critical year for someone like Ralph. For this years elections, we have a man who is such a flip flopper he is like a whirlybird, we have John McCain, BUT we also have Ralph Nader. Ralph Nader, who is running with Matt Gonzalez. Both men so accomplished. The NObama looks pale in comparison. Is that why you ignore Ralph? Are you trying to help the corporations FIX this election? OPEN THE DEBATES. I have an idea Since Dell is trying to sell their factories in the USA to contract manufacturers, and since we all know that minor contract manufacturing is done in Asia, we will be asking DELL to SPONSOR a public debate for all the candidates. We will have John McCain, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader and will use video of everyone of the different answers Obama has given for each question. The reason we will have to use video of obama is he has already announced that he is the corporate owned poster boy and he will not be doing any debates outside of the Corporate Owned debates. OPEN THE DEBATES. Ralph is almost at 10%, give him some airtime. You ARE public television. Thank you for your time
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
10:28 PM 		Leon Koziewicz : I am dismayed that the acceptance speeches of the Republican candidates Palin and McCain were not more critically reviewed by PBS. If one listens to the speech of Palin it seems obvious that she takes as her primary argument that McCain is to only be lauded and that any opposition is unacceptable and unpatriotic. Further, her point appears to be that everyone else is an enemy to be discarded and disposed of without regard for the substance of their views and actions. As a standin for McCain she has not offered reasons for voters to support him. Palin was able to exploit general unfamiliarity with her background to effectively avoid criticism by the press and to nevertheless inject inaccurate and misleading remarks in her speech, apparently without risk of either being called on them or herself becoming subject to equally aggressive and warranted questioning on issues. If Palin can attack without regard to merit and is granted clemency and immunity from defending against response, then that would allow only a very one-sided and distorted discussion to occur. The speech of McCain seemed to rely on his war record almost completely, with each line, each grimace becoming a grin of self-congratulation, and each pause for applause geared to reinforce the notion that implicit in his service record is a satisfactory, sufficient, and necessary preparation for the Presidency. It is quite a trick to reduce argument to make it appear that a doubt of McCain's qualification for the Presidency is an ungrateful questioning of his very honorable service record. On the issue of Change, it is not clear what McCain has in mind. The claim and exhortation of McCain to fight has an emotional impact and appeal that lacks direction and specificity and appears to be the gut call of an old soldier who has seen too much of war and who is still involved in fighting the past and who believes that war is the answer to conflict. It was amazing to hear McCain( and Palin too ) suggest that he and he alone with the Republicans is operating under the principle of Country First. McCain's speech is disturbing in claiming and promoting Republican patriotism with the implication that others are lacking and is a gross distortion and insult to the citizens of our country. Aren't others as patriotic and willing to fight for our country? There is a also a contradiction which has been grossed over which does not account for how the notion of self-interest as seen in typical Republican behavior squares with Country First as it does not appear that those whose incomes are over 5 million dollars annually have been involved in the sacrifices that are being proclaimed by McCain.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
10:00 PM 		Craig Newport : PBS: I am a devoted PBS viewer AND a political junkee, but I didn't watch any of the coverage of the conventions other than what was reported in other venues. They have become partisan infomercial pep rallies. I know exactly what they will say before they open their mouths. Craig Newport
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
09:58 PM 		Frank : Shields and Brooks are great. Balanced and fair. Thinking people's reporters. I'd like to see them on election night and at the debates to hear their thoughts. Thanks for giving us something other than the shouters from other TV ststaions.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
09:07 PM 		Sandy Dilatush : I was very pleased with your coverage of the conventions! I was not so pleased with other stations. You showed all the speakers. The only time the anchors and guests talked was when music was being presented. I flipped to the other stations (quickly) just to see what they were doing, and the anchor people were talking, talking, talking while speakers were at the podium. It was annoying to think that they, who may be seen every day, thought they were more important than the speakers voicing pertinent opinions at a convention who are seen only once every four years. I love Shields and Brooks, who are so good at presenting facts, disagreeing, agreeing, and all without yelling or talking over one another. It is so pleasant and I can understand every idea and opinion, which is all presented in an intelligent manner. It's a well received learning experience. I watch the Lehrer News Hour every day. Again, always a learning experience. It is presented with the viewer in mind, rather than dominance of flamboyant egos. Also, because there are no commercials, the news may be presented in depth, and we are not subjected to viewing five minutes of a news item, then subjected to that awful "for more information go to XXXX.com." Thank you, thank you to Jim and to everyone involved (also behind the scenes) for fair and excellent reporting! Sincerely, Sandy Dilatush Denver, Colorado
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
08:49 PM 		David M. Weiby : Please forward me a copy of your mission statement. I am concerned whether you coverage is consistent with your expressed goals. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
07:54 PM 		margot : Frankly, I do not understand why, while interviewing the pro choice Republican delegates (Christie Whitman or Olivia Snow), you did not ask them one crucial question. It is almost certain that if we elect John McCain, Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. How do they feel about it? Is party loyalty more important to them than women rights? Or, may be they do not believe that the Supreme Court will overturn it? Isn't it a question worth asking? Who will ask this question if you do not.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
07:29 PM 		first time viewer : This is the first time I've really followed politics and hands down, PBS has wowed me with its informed, insightful coverage, especially the analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks. And I can't wait for battleground insight during this last stretch. Keep up the great work!
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
06:56 PM 		Gillermo Moye : I watched both comventions as everyone should have to form their own unbiased opinion. I commend the team Jim Lerher assembled. Mark Shields is very sharp with attention to detail and David Brooks, a George Will in training, was on the mark most of the time with the exception when his conservative feelings and views surfaced near the end of the DNC. I give him credit though, he did recognize it and apologized. If only he can get John McCain to be as honorable with his ethics would he have a true chance. Sen. McCain's smiles come across as scripted from a teleprompter and unsincere. His speech and speeches are always filled with halve truths based on the audience he is speaking. His messages are conflicting and that is extened to his selection of a running mate. While his surrogates criticized Sen. Obama about being a community activist, he took the stage and ask for a helping hand from everyone and vowed to stand next to the people side by side. That sounds like community activism to me because a presidential leader stands out in front of the people. Of course, he apologized today, 09/07, on Face the Nation when Bob Schieffer brought up the issue. To my point of halve truths, his campaign has been employing the old philosophy that "it is easier to apologize than ask permission." This election race should be subtitled the "Tooty Fruity" election. Referring to the song by Little Richard and then re-released by Pat Boone. It will come down to the version people like best. I would have to cast my vote for the original version or change agent. The Republican platform could be summed up as 10% Obama and 90% Bush and that bush. If you run back all video of McCain, it will show that he is losing his bearings due to his age. He takes full circles to when he turns a person two feet away from him. He walked around aimlessly on the stage at the RNC with a microphone in his hand like he was lost. Cindy McCain has to be in every camera shot. It's as almost as if she is there to protect him or she is just an egotistical elitist.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
05:55 PM 		Sherrill Futrell : I envy the audience who get Canadian television, WHICH WAS SUPERB. At least your show was MUCH BETTER than the pathetic "Big Media" non-coverage, but boy did I get sick of David Brooks, who's also Charlie Rose's "expert", most of the old boy network you keep going back to except for Mark Halperin who actually knows something, and endless interruption of the convention speeches by your talking heads. Please get more women, but please lose Doris Kearns Goodwin - I like her personally, but her plagiarism is infamous and I have no respect for her as a historian. So PLEASE continue your lengthy coverage - Thank you! And PLEASE let us hear the other covnention speakers!!
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
03:40 PM 		cherie : Loved watching both conventions! Thank you for airing! It was pretty obvious that most-all the professor comentarys were left democrats. This was made known when they were asked about Romneys speech, everyone of them put down the speech when in fact it was a very well presented and insightful speech. Also, after one of the speeches one of the comentarys was asked what he thought of it. Istead of saying what he thought he went right into saying " you have to remember over 90% of the people in the audience here are white". It was obvious he was trying to tell the minority voters to not come join the white crowd. It is sad when the day comes that minorites segregate themselves and vote for a person just because of their race. Do issues and experience mean nothing to that man? Thankfully, I have several minority friends who are not fraid to stand up for what they truely believe. It is inspiring to see they do this despite opposition they endure. It is people like my minority friends, it will not be long until the GOP is a good majority built up with minority's and the self segregation stops.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
02:25 PM 		LKF : I so appreciate your coverage ! Mr. Lehrer is consistently knowlegdeable, fair, respectful, and even funny at times. There is always a balance of perspectives, some of whom I do not always agree with; that's appropriate. I was glad to see the extent of the coverage: all evening compared to one hour on networks. I do like the historians' discussions and think they offer valuable insights. My favorites continue to be Shields and Brooks. Its interesting to see how they both have "evolved" over the years on The News Hour. They are so bright, so thoughtful, so analytical, and so reswpectful ! The news coverage and, hence, the public is so much better because they are contributors. Thanks for PBS; it makes the world a better place!
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
01:21 PM 		Barbara : This comment is for Judy Woodruff--re her piece on women's reaction to Sarah Palin. I was sorry that you didn't go to women themselves--just spoke with women who analyse women. I'm part of Code Pink, Women for Peace; as soon as Sarah Palin was announced as the VP pick for the Republican ticket, we said that she doesn't represent peace. Or us. If you remember the song, "Row, row, row your boat" then you'll be able to sing the following verses: "Sa-rah Pa-a-lin, we know what you stand for. Save the fetus in the womb Then send him off to war." "Sa-rah Pa-a-lin, supports Arctic drilling. It won't bring down the price of gas But, Shell will make a killling." As I sang these in St. Paul and Minneapolis, I know your cameras recorded our presentation. I hope you'll offer our "choir" to your viewers. Along with one of Code Pink's articulate women. Peace, Barbara
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
11:07 AM 		Pete B : Thank you. Your coverage of both conventions was informative, insightful, and engaging. I continue to be impressed with Brooks and Shields. I wish others would take a lesson in how individuals can have stark differences in opinion, yet argue respectfully, logically, and without emotion and anger. I especially appreciate their reluctance to spout party rhetoric and spin. Apologies in advance for use of first names. I don't mean to be disrespectful, I just remember first names more easily. Likes: Brooks and Shields Gwen's interviews Paul's reviews of economic plans The two national pollsters, Amy and ?Alex? Not so crazy about: Judy on the convention floor - didn't think those spots added anything of substance. A couple of spots that just involved guests from boths sides repeating the party lines (e.g., Judy's piece with the two pollsters on the women vote, segments with the four guest newspeople from battleground states). Again, thank you for superb coverage. I'll be tuned in nightly!
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
11:00 AM 		Phyllis : I specifically found the Newshour website to make the comments that Karl Peterson already posted on 9/6. To re-inforce his points: 1) Linda DiVall, the Republican campaign pollster came across with a very different, very political agenda than the Democratic (non-campaign hired) pollster and Judy Woodruff, seemed unprepared to corral Ms. DiVall. More generally, I long for more specific follow-up questions that ask for proof, facts, data, records, statistics, etc. from interviewees. Newshour is the news program I watch daily and I thought the convention coverage included the competence and quality I appreciate every day. Austin, TX
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
05:53 AM 		Cliff Claven : I really appreciate the full coverage of both conventions. The conventions may have an element of propaganda. But these events also provide insight into the priorities of each party.
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
04:10 AM 		Gene M : Good coverage overall. I really enjoy seeing the look on Jim Lehrer's face when he hears something from a correspondent that doesn't make any sense. Lucky for us, Jim is not good at hiding his disbelief. I think Mark Shields is a fine journalist and strives to be impartial. However, David Brooks has clearly lost touch with journalism and has become a propaganda tool for special interests. Sadly, it lowers the credibility of everyone on the News Hour to hear David's disingenuous and sheepish analyses. Finally, my favorite part of the convention coverage was seeing Gwen Ifill's interview with Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark, NJ. Seldom has Gwen shown such delight in interviewing someone. Go Gwen!
Posted:
09/ 7/08 at
12:00 AM 		NY Viewer : Thank you for your complete coverage of the conventions and mostly unbiased commentary.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
11:28 PM 		ralph : I liked the extensive coverage, but at the conclusion of the RNC a sensed Gwen was showing media bias with here unenthusiastic conclusion of the convention. It seems to me all mainstream media including Hollywood have cast their lot with the democrats for decades. You see it with Oprah, we saw it with Dan Rather, NBC, MSNBC(Joke), CNN. Palin was personally attacked by the media doing the Obama camp a big favor or his bidding(or so they thought). The truth is there is no dirt on Palin because she is solid. And soon tobe conservative star that will be a powerful force in the future and the media doesn't like that fact. So the character assassination attempt back fired and she defended herself causing backlash on the media. They have shown their true colors. And now there is talk about the fairness doctrine targeting am radio to curtail or eliminate talk radio which is conservative for the most part. The powers behind this and the liberal media are trying to snuff out their critics. It is very difficult indeed to find objective journalism these days.So sad for America that the first amendment is under a constant whithering by people who don't care about the truth. For the most part Jim Lehrer seems to stick to the facts and doesn't cover gossip news which is refreshing. Please keep this trend PBS, and don't go the way of NPR.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
10:59 PM 		FredM : This is such an important election year. I religiously watched your broadcasts for both party's conventions. I was thoroughly impressed with Jim Lehrer's coverage. He surrounded himself with bright and well informed analysts who worked balance to perfection. You have earned my trust as the network to watch in the future. Best regards, FredM
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
10:31 PM 		pau hana : Thanks so much for your excellent coverage of the conventions...really, I must say I was absorbed in the Democratic convention since I am definitely a democrat. It is an excellent idea to hear the comments of Shields and Brooks and enjoyable to hear the historians' points of view. I truly appreciate having NOVA to watch and my Saturday night favorites are the British comedies that are shown. All excellent programming...again, thank you.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
10:12 PM 		Virginia Lee : I'd have been more impressed had the local PBS station not cut the signal each and every night just moments before the "main character" of the evening was giving the final flourishes to their speeches--particularly with the Democratic Convention. But, what can one expect from local-yokels, I suppose some cynics might say. Well, I expect they're as capable of excellence as anyone else, but particularly where PBS is concerned. My jaw dropped in disbelief as the signal dropped. No magnificently grand finish to Hillary's or Obama's speech, only that "ssshhhhhhh" noise and blankness, as the station moved straight into their standard nothingness of 11 p.m. programming. THIS IS THE BLOODY CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE U.S., FOR GOD'S SAKE! No less than the Bill of Rights, for heaven's sake, shows the Founders giving guarantees for the press so it could provide the people with the coverage of what government's up to--it is, in fact, THE sole reason for the "freedom of the press," they're always touting and defending. Rather than being interpreted--erroneously--as the ability to say or broadcast simply anything one bloody well pleases, but instead, freedom the press is necessary to a democracy--a government of the people, by the people, etc.--so that its people get information about actions, policy proposals, and so on, not from those who'd otherwise be under the yokes of government, itself. In that instance, the press would become little more than its house organ and thus merely its ministry of propaganda. THAT was the point of the "freedom of the press," and little else--the raison d'etre of the press, its sole reason for existing in the first place and at all. So, if there is nothing else PBS manages to pull off other than the news, it is the political actions of this nation, and especially its elections--and among those, in particular the one for the presidency--that absolutely must be covered. (Whatever idiots were running WCVE each of those nights--banish them to the Siberian beat for Isvestia!)
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
09:53 PM 		Barbara : After spending some very frustrating, wasted time trying to watch the conventions on the networks ABC, CBS, and NBC I found relief and satisfaction when I tuned in to SC ETV. You are to be commended in allowing viewers to watch and listen to the speakers themselves. I don't mind listening to commentary, but I greatly appreciate having the chance listen to the subject matter first-hand before I am forced to listen to someone else's comments. Your people were very good at cutting themselves off so that listeners could watch the convention as it was happening. You have my greatful thanks and appreciation for your coverage of the conventions. Keep up the good work!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
09:17 PM 		nessa munter : Thank you for your coverage of both conventions. We watched every minute. I also was concerned that the arrest of Amy Goodman was not mentioned on the News Hour. This is also important convention news. Once we choose our canidate and place our vote on election day how do we know our vote will be counted correctly? After the last two elections and some problems during the Primary the safety of our vote is still at issue. Is the News Hour planning a discussion of this next most important subject of Election '08? Nessa Munter
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
08:49 PM 		P Lanting : Your coverage is superior to all the others. However, after watching last nights coverage of NOW with the arrest of protesters at RNC and the arrest of Amy Goodman by borderline storm troopers, I have to ask why was this not covered as important news. This was terrifing. We do not need a police state. I also recommend that Democracy Now be carried by PBS in Sacramento. Our radio news is totally conservative. There is no voice in Sacramento that is less than conservative. Where are you? Where is your voice in this commujnity?
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
08:44 PM 		Jan : Thanks for a job very well done! I thoroughly enjoyed both convention broadcasts. Some of the speeches weren't so hot and sent me off to dreamland, but your in-depth coverage and commentary saved the day. I was successful in getting a number of friends and relatives to tune out the abbreviated versions of the big three and the ranting and raving found on the cable networks, for PBS. Every one thanked me for making them aware that there was a great alternative out there. We're all looking forward to your presentation of the debates.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
07:20 PM 		familyman : Republican GOP lied and exaggerated throughout the convention, while the Democrats language was more precise, less exaggeration. No one seemed to spell out how much damage the Bush administration has caused. Obama seemed to touch on it, but it was not openly discussed by the press. The press seems to have forgotten all the problems occurred in the last 8 years. The IRAQ was started by lying to the public about WMD, the economy is worst ever, deficit spending by the billions on a war without purpose, Hurricane Katrina, so many other failures!! Shouldn’t Republican congress share responsibility with the president for a failed administration? Isn’t McCain linked to those failures as a senior senator? Shouldn’t the press devote more time to those past failures?? Aren’t we doomed to these serious repeat failures without remembering the past??
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
06:10 PM 		Janet : Please talk about Anne Kilkenny and her letter. She refutes all that Sarah claims to be. I thought your coverrage was excellent,tried very hard to be non=partisan and neutral.GFreat job. Wonderful to feel that I was getting the truth about both sides. Thanks for all you do. Janet
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
06:00 PM 		salemor : Your coverage was excellent. It was informative and educational. I normally don't care about politics. You all made it interesting. I saw two comments, one made by McCain and one made by an Alaskan resident that I would like to see you explore. In his acceptance speed, McCain said he had fought special interest groups, pork spending, etc. Did you notice that he included unions in this list? As he was saying this, the camera was on the audience - it seemed to me that did not go over very well. The other was a comment made by an Alaskan woman that was interviewed in Palin's home town. She was asked about Palin's work record. The woman indicated that one of Palin's presented statues was to exclude and remove all books in the public and school libraries that she considered "subversive" and "improper". This was reported on NBC news. Talk about that.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
05:50 PM 		Terrence and Pattie Guay : We really enjoyed your coverage of both conventions. As political junkies ourselves, we liked the commentary and insight from all the Newshour guests - especially Mark Shields and David Brooks. Thanks, PBS, for doing such a great job!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
05:45 PM 		Ruth Ballowe : My husband and I thought the coverage was excellent. We especially looked forward to Shields and Brooks' commentary. This very long process (the campaign) has been difficult to stomach. It was great to see the conventions intelligently presented, not so much by the candidates but by Lehrer and his team.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
05:27 PM 		Joanne Clark : Thank you, thank you, thank you for covering the conventions in an intelligent interesting manner, with no screaming, yelling, or insulting remarks. Your coverage was the best. It actually gave me a choice away from the same old stuff on all the other stations. I really like Shields and Brooks, who always have something new and interesting to say, and usually with a bit of wry humor. And I enjoyed what the historians had to say, too. Also liked Gwen and Judy down on the floor covering those crazy people who actually go to the conventions. Keep up the good work (I know you will)and don't pay any attention to those who criticize you. Let them go watch the screamers.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
03:54 PM 		cuprose1 : Thank you for your broadcasts and your brilliant analysis for both DNC and RNC events. I have always been looking forward to listening to Shield and Brooks' comments along the way. When watching the RNC event, I could not help but feel very disappointed, saddened and (sometimes) upset by the mindset of the Republican (base) folks. I came to this country as an immigrant, and I still don't know the political system of America very well. But one thing I am sure as to become an intelligent voter, one should not mix their religious beliefs or their cultural values with the current national issues. These very issues are in a very dire state after eight years of our ignorant Republican president. John McCain is no war hero to me. He is an imperialist who murdered many innocent Vietnamese people. The poor country did not even invoke a war to the US in the beginning, exactly just like the Iraq war in this present time ... I do wish or hope for more programs from your daily News Hour during the election months, perhaps to educate, to enlighten the American people, especially the Republican base in the South of how to use their analytical thinking, their intelligence, their true conscience (above all those religious propaganda) in the process to choose a right leader for this glorious nation ... The people's decisions in this election are so crucial at this time. If we select a right president for this country, my hope is perhaps it would save many of our young soldiers not being killed or maimed in any senseless ideological wars. Instead, we need to focus on preparing our workforce and our future young generations to compete in the fierce global economy. Thank you so much again.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
03:43 PM 		Pat Snelling, Garden Valley, CA : I have the greatest respect for the News Hour show, but I am deeply disappointed that nothing was said about the reporter arrested and charged with a crime for being around the protesters. I actually saw a film of a camerawoman slammed on the ground and you hear her say "where can we go?" and yell "Press, Press." I saw her camera bounce when they slammed her a second time. Why is this ignored? She had her credentials hanging on her neck. You could see them from the other side of the fence. Do we want a country that makes it a CRIME to watch police respond to protesters? My question is WHY DID NEWSHOUR NOT REPORT ON THIS???
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
03:43 PM 		Keith Bishop : PBS, you fail to fail in your political coverage. Being able to watch both conventions in full commercial-free format, with the most intelligent and least demagogic analysis is a breath of fresh air. If the commercial broadcast and cable networks were capable of such in-depth and nuanced coverage of ANY issue, I might consider switching from PBS. The daily breakdown by Shields and Brooks as well as the thoughtful and charmingly exhausted coverage by Charlie Rose has been phenomenal. Thank you, PBS.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
03:14 PM 		jason switzer : > Here is a letter from Anne Kilkenny Johnson, a 59-year old resident of > Wasilla, Alaska. > > Dear friends, > > So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the > last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . . Basically, Sarah > Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in common: their gender and > their good looks. > > You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts with > my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on any > websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . . > > Thanks, Anne > > ABOUT SARAH PALIN > > I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992. > Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a > first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her father > was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a first name > basis with her parents and mother-in-law . I attended more City Council > meetings during her administration than about 99% of the residents of the > city. > > She is enormously popular; in every way she's like the most popular girl > in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and won't vote > for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because she is a "babe". > > It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She > kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents for > seven months. > > She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby. > There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby. > > She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym. > > She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out there" > and if they prove to be popular, she takes credit. > > Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a champion > snowmobile racer. Todd Palin's kind of job is highly sought-after because > of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his work schedule so he can fish > for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or so in summer, but by no stretch > of the imagination is fishing the ir major source of income. Nor has her > life-style ever been anything like that of native Alaskans. > > Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters. She's smart. > > Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000 (at > the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about 670,000 > residents. > > During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running this > small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been pushed to > hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had gotten > herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had given rise to > a recall campaign. > > Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a "fiscal conservative". During her 6 years > as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. > During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City > increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). > She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales > tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large > corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents. > > The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration > weren't enough to fund everything on her wish list though, so borrowed > money was needed , too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it > with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the > voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she > supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new > library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use > sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property > that the City didn't even have clear title to, that was still in > litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports > complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, > not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds > for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without > any borrowing. > > While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office > redecorated more than once. > > These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city. > > As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus in > Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will make us > energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she proposed > distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state. > > In=2 0this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she > recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while she > proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's surplus, > borrow for needs. > > She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or > compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or > her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of > who proposed them. > > While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected > City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the > library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to > the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at > out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination > letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her > enemies list to this day. > > Sarah complained about the "old boy's club" when she first ran for Mayor, > so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin fired most > of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as Governor she > hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people, creating a staff > totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally grateful and > fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power to further her > personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the case of > pressuring the State's top cop (see below). > > As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasilla's Police Chief because he "intimidated" her, > she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska 's top cop > has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure and she > had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that an important > factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't fire her > sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation for abuse of > power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen contacts were made > between her staff and family to the person that she later fired, > pressuring him to fire her ex-bro the r-in-law. She tried to replace the > man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded for sexual > harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew her support. > > She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in > help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town > introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council > became one of her first targ ets when she was later elected Mayor. She > abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didn't like > the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness. > > Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything > publicly about her. > > When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got > the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one of > the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no background > in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great job which paid > $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the high salary. I was > told that she hated that job: the commute, the structured hours, the work. > Sarah became aware that a member of this Commission (who was also the > State Chair of the Republican Party) engaged in unethical behavior on the > job. In a gutsy move which some undoubtedly cautioned her could be > political suicide, Sarah solved all her problems in one fell swoop: got > out of the job she hated and garnered gobs of media attention as the > patron saint of ethics and as a gutsy fighter against the "old boys' club" > when she dramatically quit, exposing this man's ethics violations (for > which he was fined). > > As Mayor, she =2 0 had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from > Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel politics > and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the "bridge to nowhere" > after it became clear that it would be unwise not to. > > As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget guidelines, > then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing projects, calling > them pork. Public outcry and further legislative action restored most of > the se projects--which had been vetoed simply because she was not aware of > their importance--but with the unobservant she had gained a reputation as > "anti-pork". > > She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party leaders > hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated them. Other > members of the party object to her self-description as a fiscal > conservative. > > Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah. They > call her "Sarah Barracuda" because of her unbridled ambition and predatory > ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly stories circulated > around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made point guard on the > high school basketball team. When Sarah's mother-in-law, a highly > respected member of the communit y and experienced manager, ran for Mayor, > Sarah refused to endorse her. > > As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together a package of > legislation known as "AGIA" that forced the oil companies to march to the > beat of her drum. > > Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife > Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to global > warming. She campaigned "as a private citizen" against a state initiaitive > that would have either a) protected salmon streams from pollution from > mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the state depending on > who you listen to. She has pushed the State's lawsuit against the Dept. of > the Interior's decision to list polar bears as threatened species. > > McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a > heartbeat away from being President. > > There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more knowledgeable > and experienced than she. > > However, there are a lot of people who have underestimated her and are > regretting it. > > CLAIM VS FACT > * "Hockey mom": true for a few years > > * "PTA mom": true years ago when her first-born was in elementary school, > not since > > * "NRA supporter": absolutely true > > * social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill that > would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships (said > she did this because it was unconsitutional). > > * pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to > promote it. > > * "Pro-life": mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby BUT > declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life > legislation > > * "Experienced": Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has > residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska . No > legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on > supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city administrator > to run town of about 5,000. > > * political maverick: not at all > > * gutsy: absolutely! > > * open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at explaining > actions. > > * has a developed philosophy of public policy: no > > * "a Greenie": no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and > disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR. > > * fiscal conservative: not by my definition! > > * pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and par k in a city > without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built streets > to early 20th century standards. > > * pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on > residents > > * pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city government > in Wasilla's history. > > * pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union doesn't > make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim that she is > pro-labor/pro-union. > > WHY AM I WRITING THIS? > > First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed voter. > I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting programs in > the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny + Alaska ), you will > find references to my participation in local government, education, and > PTA/parent organizations. > > Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen when > good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because few have > gone to as many City Council meetings. > > Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out of. I > don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no fool; she > is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will20cost me somehow > in the future: that's life. > > Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100 or > so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's > attempt at censorship. > > Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to say > anything because they were somehow vulnerable. > > CAVEATS > I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in > spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor) from > information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of Wasilla > , and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust for > inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible for a > private person to get any info out of City Hall -- they are swamped. So I > can't verify my numbers. > > You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the > population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The day > Palin's selection was announced a city official told me that the current > population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was 5,460. I > have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to 2002, and the > city was growing rapidly in the mid-90's. > > Anne Kilkenny > annekilkenny@hotmail.com > August 31, 2008 > > >
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
03:01 PM 		Rose D. : With a heavy heart, I read the rabid emotional attacks of "the other party's candidate" without any substantive facts to back it up. It's just venting. How fortunate for us that this internet opportunity is available to review the spectrum of responses and reactions to the political process. Responses are reasoned analyses of the information at hand, and I'm encouraged to see that most respondents below have thoughtful contributions to make to the dialogue. They are not just contributing to the hysteria of fear that reactors seem to represent. And education does count toward developing a more aware, caring and responsible society. One of the apparent skills of my candidate is that he really listens to anyone with any viewpoint who wishes to talk to him. And he will, as President, surround himself with highly skilled, proven public servants, as he showed in his choice of a running mate who has been one of the most knowledgeable and dedicated members of the Foreign Relations committee for many years. Change is necessary for shear survival on the planet, and the delay of taking already late actions in the areas of environment, unprovoked war, and mounting debt--supposedly one of the major concerns of the Republican Party--could be irreversibly harmful to our nation. China practically owns us through open-ended debt! Barack Obama has vision because he cares and listens. What I heard in Mr. McCain was a narrow grasp of what the fundamental issues are that our nation faces. It's not about gun control or abortion or religion in the schools. These are internal issues about which we, as individuals, must and do decide for ourselves through dialogue and appropriate process. There are answers to these questions, but not when there are extreme reactions from people without information or understanding of others views or needs. Now our challenge is about becoming a useful and purposeful world leader again, against the major threats of this age to all of earth's peoples. We have alot of work to do to regain their trust and faith that we really deserve to be called the "greatest nation on this earth". We have to prove this, not by gun power but by opening our hearts and minds to the genuine needs of the planet and all its peoples. We have a long restoration ahead of us, and we can't afford four more years of vetos and petty obstinacy in the face of it.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
02:55 PM 		Doug Tapper : I appreciate your coverage of the RNC. I would suggest replacing David Brooks as your Republican commentator. Shield and Brooks agree on just about everything. Where's the balance commentary that reflects our genuine differences? Listening to Brooks you would think the Republican party is made up of mostly Liberal Moderates who agree with the Democrates. The Conservative base of the Republican party does not agree with that characterization.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
02:52 PM 		Gail : Brooks and Shields are two of my favorite political commentators. As a loyal Democrat I appreciate Mark Shields and his often witty comments and I find David Brooks one of the few Republicans whose analysis I look forward to hearing. They are both very knowledgeable and I hope they will continue informing us for a long time
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
02:24 PM 		Karl Petersen : I appreciated your virtually complete coverage of both conventions, but I was aghast at your playing dead in the interviews and analysis of the reactions to the speeches of the Republican nominees. One female pollster, apparently with the McCain campaign, repeatedly moved from commenting on polls, as she was supposed to do, to unabashed arguments for the Republican ticket. I think the interviewer (Woodruff?) let her get away with murder. And for reaction to the Palin speech, you brought on three Republicans, who fawned all over that empty and sickeningly nasty performance. How about some follow-up questions sometimes? Or at least ask the obvious question when one of your guests makes an obvious outrageous statement. I hope that Lehrer and Ifill will not be such zeroes when they run the debates.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
02:08 PM 		Joan Steinman : Why isn’t there more said about the abuse of our constitutional rights last week when protestors were arrested at the RNC! The police went into homes and detained people!? They arrested news people! They arrested AMY GOODMAN. How can this happen? Who is responsible?
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:47 PM 		Wells Burgess : I just received from a friend a You-tube video of Amy Goodman being arrested in St. Paul and information that charges of "incitement to felony riot" are pending against her and two of her producers. In light of the attention that is assiduously paid to arrests of journalists in other countries, how is that this matter was not reported in the News Hour?
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:37 PM 		J : You're quilty and reenforcing of the same ignorant mindset of the candidates. Conscientious objectors are heros ie. Christians in the arena. Nationalism and wars are bad, especially, as related to McCain and Vietnam. The minimum wage and automatic government worker pay increases for merely doing the same job are bad and a significant contributor to inflation ie. currency devaluation. We must manage the econony to assure at least a one percent deflation and strengthing of our currency annually. All earmarks, war profiteering, and other deficit spending is bad. We must balance the budget and pay off the national debt by all means beginning by ending all entitlement programs, restricting FICA to the SSI qualified, charging tuition based on a family's ability to pay, etc. The value of retiree's savings must not be diminished by out of control spending and capital gains taxes. The problem was the increase in housing prices not in their decline. Housing is a depreciating commodity and not an investment vehicle unless a country's currency is in imminite depression free fall. The solution may require one term limits for all elective and appointed government offices to help stop the career politicians and their PAC special interest supporters.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
11:26 AM 		Matthew W : Whatever you do....do NOT let go of Mark Shields or David Brooks nor of Judy Woodruff! The very BEST of the BEST! Thank you PBS.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
11:25 AM 		Margaret Krueger : As an independent voter with a 50 year voting record - PBS is to be congratulated, to a point. Why does no one mention McCain's involvement with the KEATING FIVE. After 8 years of Republican rule I don't want any more years of Republican economics. Palin's resume is not admirable when you check it. McCain's claim to fame is his POW record (when all else fails). He stopped being a maverick when he sucked up to the religious right and GWB! He is not the man he was in 2000 when I voted for him. As for the Democratic ticket - the best thing going for it is Joe Biden. I am looking forward to watching CNN and the coverage of the Libertarian Party with Bob Barr. Please don't give McCain a pass regarding his true credentials like GWB was given one for the first 2ix years of his regime! Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
11:18 AM 		Luc Hétu : There is one question that I would like to ask to John McCain, the "hero". Because the word hero is mentionned automatically when talking about Mr. McCain. I do not dispute the fact that he showed a lot of character in the hands of the North Vietnamese, about 40 years ago. But, I never heard about the number of people who died as a result of the bombs that he showered on the Vietnamese people. In my mind, it is far for a courageous act to bomb installations and people from the sky. It can be risky for the pilot, but he is shielded from knowing the suffering that he inflicts from way up there. This is the same problem with Irak and Afghanistan today. Nothing much has been learned in the past 40 years. When civilians get hurt, those who do the bombing or the shooting have a responsibility. Just to blame resistants or terrorist (depending on the point of view) because they shield themselves with civilians is not a valid excuse to kill the civilians. When the US President and his government talk about killing the Talibans, they forget that they are Afghans too. They are residents of Afghanistan. Not the US soldiers. They have family, friends (and ennemies), even children. But when the solution is to kill an important part of the population of a country to make it adopt Wertern standards, is it really worth it? So, how many innocent people did John McCain kill during the Vietnam war with his bombs? Was it worth it? By killing all the North Vietnamese, would Vietnam have become a better country than it is today? I don't know. This is why I ask the question...
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
11:17 AM 		SatMan : Your coverage: Apart from the rare interesting historical footnote, a lot of useless hot air. Need coverage of the gourmet food, liquor, and strippers. Coverage by Bob Ross of ABC News and Jon Stewart was far superior. Like the difference between chewing the fat and chewing the meat. Know what I mean?
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
11:15 AM 		Moro : Both convention coverages have been a MONUMENTAL waste of time on your channel.It's being covered on all the other channels; why did you feel the need to "DITTO" these blowhard polititian speeches of either party?
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
10:52 AM 		Luc Hétu : There is a tendency in American journalism (it is getting the same all over the world) to simply ask a question, get two opposing points of view (opinions), and letting the viewer just make up his or her own mind. But if the person interviewed gives an answer or an opinion with "facts" that are not true, I think that it is the responsibility of the journalist to state the facts. Presidential candidates and vice-presidential candidates have presented facts that are not true. A professionnal journalist should not let that go by. By letting those interviewed say things that are false, the journalist is actng in an irresponsible way. Maybe we should remind journalist that they are not just microphone holders for people to spread propaganda. They should be looking fot facts and the truth, no just a clash of opinions that makes a good show (as in showbusiness). They should help people understand, not just take sides...
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
10:52 AM 		Nandini Kuehn : I thought your coverage was excellent, I think your news programs are excellent. I think Jim strikes exactly the right note and all of the commentators provide rational thoughtful opinions. And your commentators bring something beyond their own opinions, a sense that they have come prepared - Everyone is prepared. I must admit that I ocassionally broke away for more partisan stuff... it was hard to be dispassionate for the full time span of both conventions. but that was only briefly. I always came back to PBS. My favorites are Shields and Brooks. I do not agree with Brooks always, but I like hearing the opinions of people that I do not agree with. I also, suprise, agree with David's take a lot of the time. Shields is wonderful... funny, witty and sharp. Again, they strike the right level of partisanship without being strident. They make a great pair. I like all of the regulars - I won't name people in case I miss one. Thank you all for being there.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
10:40 AM 		sandy : I love your news coverage in general. I think it is thorough and in depth. I am an independent. I rarely miss your evening news, especially Friday evenings because I love the analysis of Shields and Brooks. I've been watching it faithfully ever since it was Shields and Gigot. I love that you give opinions from both sides done in a temperate manner. I love Juan Williams also and Maria Liasson. And all your every night regulars, like Jeffery and Gwen and so on. Being an independent, I am waiting for all the facts before I make a final decision (probably on Nov 4th...)as to who I will vote for. On the Demo side I had favored Biden or Hillary. On the Republican side I was very conflicted, but I am glad that it shook out to be John McCain. I would love to see him ask his chief primary rivals to take cabinet posts. As far as Governor Palin: At first I thought, "Oh, no!" But after hearing her speeches and watching the coverage about her, good and bad, I really believe she can rise to the occasion. I think it is appropriate to compare her "experience" to that of Mr. Obama because the complaint you hear is "What if McCain should die?" Recognizing that Obama is counting on the advice of an experienced person in Biden, obviously Gov. Palin would also have to rely on her advisors that would have been left in place by McCain if something suddenly happened to him. She is obviously very bright and I believe she has the welfare of our country at heart. I believe she would make the right decisions. Her "lack of foreign policy experience" does not bother me for that reason. I am sure that even if Biden had been the nominee, he still would have listened to advisors and the generals. Just as I am sure McCain will if he is elected. As far as the concern about McCain's age and health: By looking at his mother at age 96, how vibrant and spry and outspoken she is, I think we can look forward to McCain's being healthy during his presidency. He keeps a close watch on Melanoma outbreaks. With Mr. Biden whose mother I understand is around 90- I haven't heard either way as to her mental competency, so I have no opinion on that- even though Biden is six or 7 years younger than McCain, he has had those two aneurysms. I would be just as concerned about that as about McCain's possible melanomas. So if we are worrying about the experienced and knowledgeable person on each ticket dying, then that would leave us with contrasting Obama and Palin. I really think the government should just be here to help people to help themselves, not just give us everything and tax the most productive people more in order to do it. Sarah Palin's husband seems to be the one most in charge of the children. What's wrong with that? There are many families in which the wife has to work or is the greater bread-winner and the husband takes care of the children. The commercial networks and some newspapers' persecution of Palin's daughter is unspeakable. Their mentioning a 20 year DUI arrest of the husband without in the same breath mentioning Obama's drug use at that age is really not fair and balanced reporting. And the coverage I see on CNN and MSNBC outrages me because they are so patently biased towards the left. Even though Fox news appears to me to favor the right, I do see a lot of presentations of both sides of the issues, which I appreciate very much. When the "troopergate" investigation is mentioned, the liberal commentators conveniently forget to mention the allegation that the brother-in-law tazered a child (whether his own or his wife's only, I haven't heard.) It will be interesting to hear the WHOLE story there. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. And keep up the good work! Sandy from Arizona
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
10:08 AM 		colleeen bawn : Wonderful unbiased coverage by Brooks and Shields(Barry Fitzgerald reincarnated). Cannot stand the screaming talking heads on cable TV. Loved the way these guys made their differences known without shouting or ridiculing each other
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
07:20 AM 		aliliz : Thank you PBS. I always feel Mark gives an excellent viewpoint of an issue; David is partisan and will only give a Republican point of view. Too bad, David. You miss a lot.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
06:21 AM 		G. Clayton Taylor : The one thing I find amusing and highly hypocritical, as usual, with the GOP, is they way they moan and groan at the "sexist" coverage of Palin, all the while sporting "She's Hot! buttons on their lapels! Let me see, it's okay when YOU do it, GOP, but sexist when everyone else does the same thing? Give me a break! The GOP has become the biggest whiners since the Dem's in '04!!!!!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
05:58 AM 		Qwiktree : The "Change" that the D-Party wants is not what we,the American people need. We need and want the "Reform" changes that McCain is calling four.That is the real change. And that is no where near the Bush way of thinking. Voting for Bush in the last election,by most law abiding American citizens, was a vote for the less of the two evils. Think about that!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
05:42 AM 		G. Davis : Very even handed coverage of both the DNC and RNC. I really feel the R-Party is a boat with no rudder.... they must go Moderate to win .... but can they change their spots? I don't think so. They (R-Party) rather have McCain than lose the WhiteHouse .... the real McCain is Red, White and Blue for sure. The (R-Party) is trying to ride the coat tales of the (D-Party by sounding like them, I hope people are not fooled by this. Change means a Party Change. they (R-Pary) have had control of the country for 8 years and everyone is hurting. Thanks for being there.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
05:20 AM 		Qwiktree : McCain and Palin in the White house! I heard a comment tonight during the Shields and Brooks discussion that made me thankful that McCain brought Palin on board. And that statement was "her voice grates on me" and this comes from clearly an Obama supporter ,like a jockstrap. What really grates on him is the fact that she is right and speaks volumes of what down to earth American people think and feel,don't mess with our Constitution and put the Government back where it belongs. "For the People by the People" Put the porkers where they belong, in the slop barrel! I Am the NRA and proud of it. I'm also a combat Veteran and Damn Proud of it. And I will never vote for anti gun, anti Constitution candidates such as Obama and Biden! Do your research people before you start screaming about this comment.Enough Said. Spirit Wild
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
04:38 AM 		jayarre from SAT : Jim, we are proud of you down here. Your coverage was excellent as usual, but also as usual, the best part was and is the Shields and Brooks discussion. A thought I would like to pass along to all three of you is that the selection and success of Governor Palin now allows Senator McCain to pivot his attention back to the populist and maverick policies and political personality of his exemplary career. I believe he started this today. I look for him to do this successfully and hope for him to be our next President with an equally populist and maverick VP. We need a team with their kind of drive and toughness to poke and prod both sides of the aisle into action. They are the only candidates in the race who have histories of doing that. I think Mark and David may be underestimating Senator McCain's moxey and integrity. I don't believe he is going to just walk quietly into the woods. Run this past them and "Remember the Alamo" I am betting that Senator McCain does even though it wasn't a naval operation.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
03:45 AM 		Maargaret A, Melbourne, Australia : We look forward to watching the PBS News which gives such balanced views. The rest of the world is vitally interested in US politics because it is, after all, one world. I just pray there is no repeat of George W, who has landed us all in unwinnable wars.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
02:03 AM 		Steve in TX : Feedback on your coverage: Friday nights analysis with Brooks and Shields was one of the very best shows I've seen by your team.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
01:59 AM 		John K : The conventions are glorified pep rallys. This much effort could be put into public forums inquiring the assumed candidates as to their plans to accomplish any of what they speak about doing.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
01:57 AM 		H. Anton Tucher : Thank you for thoughtful, extensive, balanced coverrage and commentary
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
01:17 AM 		Not shy : The PBS team (headed by Jim Lehrer) has done an excellent job of covering both conventions. I especially value the conversations with and opinions of David Brooks and Mark Shields, two very sensible and sense-making journalists. Also of considerable interest are the evaluative remarks of the team of historians: Bechloss, Peniel, and Norton-Smith. (Not positive I got all the historian names correctly, but there can be no doubt to who I refer). Many thanks for the PBS brand of journalism!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:53 AM 		Carol and David Knapton : We think both convention coverages were very well done. Background and analysis by the historians and by Shields and Brooks was helpful to consider more deeply what we saw and heard. Interviews with delegates and political leaders created a sense of the action on the floor and a connection to reality. Mr Lehrer tied things together with professionalism and friendliness. Please keep it up.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:42 AM 		Gunnar Nielsson : I have watched your coverage of the two national conventions the lasst two weeks and I believe it was a general failure. PBS should not compete with the CNN style coverage and thereby compete with the pressure of immediate interpretations of the significance of current events. PBS should take a step back and provide thoughtful perspectives on these immediate events. Your participants end up compromising thoughtfulness to empty superficial banalities which has no more sinificance than the silly, subjective opinions than than the "empty taking heads" which dominate the CNN style coverage. PBS will lose credibility by such ventures. Why do'nt you try to submit your participants' superficial, well articulated guesswork from the the convention coverage to your participating professional staff three weeks from now and ask everybody how they would like to edit their immediate on-the-spot commemtaries after three weeks time to think about what they ended up saying because of the immediacy of the events. No, PBS don't repeat this mistake. return to your strengths of carefully considered background analysis. That is where your strengths lie. Sincerely, Gunnar Nielsson
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:38 AM 		Georgia : I looked forward to the final thoughts of Mark and David each night. I enjoy them and feel they are fair and honest. I watched both conventions on PBS. The only one that I thought showed any favoritism was Judy.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:35 AM 		Randy Jones : I want to thank you for your coverage of the DNC and RNC. I watched both every night and really enjoyed both immensely. I was surprised that the other networks spent so little time on the conventions. I particularly like Mark Shields, who seems like a very good friend. I always feel like Mark is talking to me. He is very wise. I also enjoy David Brooks a lot. And, I love each and every newscaster. It's a great show, and much better than regular news programs. Thank you Jim, for putting it all together with such a great team.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:33 AM 		Lynn : No coverage of the protests is unbelievable. How can this so-called liberal media miss that story? You aren't looking outside the bubble of the convention hall. Even when protesters got into the hall and interrupted McCain, there was no mention or coverage of the disruption. Quote from one of the StarTribune stories: Bruce Nestor of the National Lawyers Guild, one of the attorneys representing the eight in the initial phase, called it, "overcharging what at most was an expressed intention to block traffic. My concern is they are going to convict people for their political beliefs." And in the police sweep they swept up journalists. Simply amazing that these high-brow journalists can't stoop to even report on that over-step of the police in St. Paul. Thanks for dedicating the time to the convention. Next time make better use of the time you devote to it.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:33 AM 		DMJ : It was this evening that "NOW" gave us some information about what was happening outside the NRC. The "News Hour" could have given us reporting on the preemptive raids and arrests and the shameful treatment of Amy Goodman and her producers. There are many questions not yet explored. How were individuals identified and targeted for extra-legal treatment? Was it the laws lately changed to listen in on us? And there are so many others questions. Wouldn't you like to find out too and report to us?
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:28 AM 		Bob and Gerri Jaeger : We watched your coverage of the Democratic National Convention. Great job to all of you! We are great fans of Nightly News (welcome back Jim) and Brooks and Shields. The commentary was alway insightful and informative. You added so much to our enjoyment. We enjoyed your coverage of the DNC so much, that we found ourselves watching the Republican Convention (don't tell any of our friends!and most of our family). Great jobs, all of you. As usual, you are a class act!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:17 AM 		Markate : For David Brooks: Do you really believe that Sarah Palin wrote her own acceptance speech, as you suggested in your many commentaries at the convention and later. Even I know that the VP speech was written prior to her selection for a male candidate and quickly refined for her situation. I was beginning to have some respect for you, but now I think you just lie and distort like any stereotypical Republican.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:15 AM 		Steve : MORE COW-BELL!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:14 AM 		Steve : More policy? More cowbell man!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:14 AM 		Pat Russell : Your convention coverage was excellent, including Charlie Rose's. If your camera showed protest activity outside, I didn't see it. Is this because theoretically, it would encourage others to join in? We need the whole picture. Super coverage otherwise.
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:13 AM 		Steve : Mark Shields and David Brooks are elitist, over educated, and out of touch with most Americans. Thats why they so much wanted to hear more policy. BOOORING!
Posted:
09/ 6/08 at
12:09 AM 		Dennis Speer : Two thing i have heard nothing about and to me they were the most notable items John Mcain spoke about. He shared what actually was going on in his head during some instances during his time as a POW. This is about as deep as you can go in a person. He shared this to show how he shed the Me perspective and his eyes and heart was opened to the US as in We and his appreciation of what the "We the people" truly means. A intimate understanding of everything the United States as our forfathers meant it to be.I got the impression that some was actually offended by this. It became clear that most don't understand or even aware of this. Most are so spoiled and disconnected they have lost any connection to the true soul of what and why the USA came to be.. Second for aware, informed people, no one seems to remember is how over the years John Mcain has fought for campaign reform and against lobbyist. Do any of the people that have been commentating actually read a newspaper. Beyond skipping thru articles picking out words and phrase that they combine to fit what they want to hear amnd what fits their personal needs to get a little higher on their ladder, Building their monument to their own greatness. The "ME" filter skews a persons view on everything. How do you think people like Hitler actually seen what they was doing as right. Most of the biograpy part of the speach was to try and show where he is at, beyond the "ME". The problem I see is most that was listening lack any understanding of the concept. If anyone noticed how this affected the Veterans. On PBS a bunch of blind unenligjhtened idiots arguing...black this, women this, republicans that. Where John Mcain is speaking all of that is just backround noise. You could care less if the person that had your back all night has purple skin. They stood with you thru it all! Put the "ME's in a foxhole all night with someone trying to kill them, then ask them what is impportant if they survive until tommorrow. "Life has a flavor the protected will nmever know" Veteran of 3rd infantry Division of the United States Army. "The Audy Murphy Division" "Follow Me"
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:59 PM 		Arthur Darken : I found your coverage of both conventions wonderful and extraordinary. To be sure, it was a lot of time, over 7+ evenings. However, a presidential election is so important for the nation, especially this year, that relying on the three main commercial networks with their one prime time hour of coverage would mean missing many of the most interesting speeches and interviews that informed and educated me. Mark Shields and David Brooks provided very helpful and indepth analyses and perspectives; the panel of three historians also gave an even longer term perspective--and all from somewhat varying perspectives. Great not to have to rely only on what each party said of itself. I'm doubling my annual PBS membership contribution; the convention coverage alone would be worth every dollar of it! I also try to catch the New Hour with Jim Lehrer almost every weekday evening.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:58 PM 		Russ Chipman : All the bad things I said about Shields and Brooks below, well, I was just trying to get Jim Lehrer's attention so I could somehow get him to sign his book," No Certain Rest". I missed Mr. Lehrer when he was at Antietam a few years ago.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:54 PM 		mavis roe : I wouldn't miss any commentary of Mark Shields and David Brooks,especially David whose incisive observations are so true for me. The coverage of the conventions was excellent ,with Judy Woodruff and Gwen Ifill adding their acute summaries. Also enjoyed Charlie Rose and his group. It all made it possible for me to feel I was actually there. I did think that that Susan Palin,while energising the get together,did make John McCain look tired and aging and behind the times.I like younger people taking charge. They are educated and involved and filled with enthusiasm and well capable of running a government.We do have a civil service to help,after all. I would like to see Barack Obama be President. I'm not into guntoting people who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.As Obama put it.."assuming they have boots". I like the idea of diplomacy and,also, helping people who were not lucky enough to have parents who had it all together. We should have more mentoring going on,as Reagan suggested.Education doesn't always provide character. I think Barack understands this even if he doesn't quite know it yet. Glad to see you well Jim and back in harness. Please,never let Shields and Brooks go.Always watch them on Fridays. Very good convention coverage.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:45 PM 		H. Martin Weingartner : Tonight (9/5), you had Linda Divall (sp) once again supposedly as a pollster with information derived from her work. She was introduced as working for the McCain campaign. Fair enough. However, unlike the pollster for the Democratic side, Linda NOT ONCE uttered a statistic or comment based on her work. As in the past, she only gives out campaign rhetoric for the Republican candidates of the hour. Viewing her is worthless and she should not be invited again. If you want campaign oratory, which is appropriate, don't bring it under the guise of information. You are deceiving your audience when you do this.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:43 PM 		Donald McComas : I would like to know why the Newshour and the press in general have chosen not to report on the arrest in St Paul of Amy Goodman and other journalist.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:43 PM 		Media Critic : At the end of the Lehrer [pronounced ler-rare, German for teacher, NOT lehreh], Jim thanked Markand David for being "there" for two weeks and David wondered if people were getting tired of them. No! The night I am SURE to listen is Friday nights when Dave & Mark are commenting. I wish they were on DAILY or at least three times per week. IAs effective as the other reporters ARE, I really look forward to their comments. I have for years. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:31 PM 		Dick Brandlon : Endless repetition of tired chiches. The level of independent thinking on PBS, including Washington Week and almost every other show except Moyers has been on a downhill slide for the past two years or so and it's gotten to the point where I'm going almost exclusively to the web for news. Example: The day after the Republican convention, although discussing social issues (on WW) and the candidates "in depth" (on TNH), the word "abortion" was not mentioned once. Since this is a bulwark of Sarah Palin's thinking, was it a fear of offending certain contributors? Sadly, PBS is going down the tubes.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:29 PM 		Andrew Audet : Mr. Shields, I just caught the end of the show. I do not think you answered the question accurately, or perhaps I misunderstood. Please, can you direct me to where I can read about Obama drafting bipartisian legislation to bring about change in campaign finance reform, as I recall his pledge to accept federal finance funds, until he raised enough money to opt out, was his only effort to lead for change and campaign reform, until he reneged on his pledge. Perhaps you can direct me to bipartisan legislation like McCain Kennedy Immigration to bring about change that Mr Obama has led?- my understanding Obama opted out of this legislation that offered to lead and present change, and that Obama has yet to work across the aisle to produce an alternative actual bipartisan plan- as he has been preoccupied leading his personal desire to become President. Perhaps you can direct me to where Obama has fought on the front lines- no not in the military, but in the senate, my understanding is that 3 of his 4 years have been spent campaigning for President, and the first year was spent building a presence in Iowa. Mr. Shields, perhaps you could be so kind as to direct me to Obama's experience in leading a state budget, or making actual difficult choices of change that affect state health care, employment, education, welfare?Mr. Shields, could you be so kind as to explain to me how selecting one of the oldest, tenured, long term, part of the entrenched problem politican like Sen. Biden is emblematic of Obama change? Any help at all is appreciated Mr Shields, surely there is more than a 3 month activist role, managing a self serving presidential campaign, joining and then quitting a chuch when it became politically conveinant then inconvienant, agreeing to accept, then decline federal funds only when it became politcally prudent to do so, to show me how, where and when Mr. Obama has been an 'agent of change' and not just another empty wind bag of a grandiose politician. Funny Mr. Shields as I flew to NH to hear Mr. Obama, and was moved to send $ three times to the requested Plouffe emails- but no more, there is no substance with Obama, no experience, no leadership, no change, only empty rhetoric. It has been interesting to see the evolution of your discussions with Mr. Brooks, as Brooks has become more concrete with his examples of where, when, how and why Mr. MCain has affected, advocated, and led in the trenches to actually impact change- you can offer in return only empty rhetoric- becuase Mr Obama has never put his own self on the line to take a stand for real change- surely you can direct me to a few examples of where Mr Obama has affected real change? Patiently waiting for a response, and no longer drinking the Obama KoolAid
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:27 PM 		Befuddled Brian : After watching both conventions, I am leaning toward Obama because in my mind the Republican party has spent the last 4 days trying to convince me that they are not the Republican party and they want me to believe that if elected that they are not going to act the like the Republican party and I just don't believe them anymore. It reminds me of a habitual gambler, that has been gambling for 8 years and has told me that he is going to quit gambling if only I will loan him more money to get him out trouble with his bookie. My answer to that person would be, you first have to prove to me that you are not a gambler anymore before will give you another chnace. The Republicans just saying they won't do it again is not enough. They ahve been gambling with the lives of of soliders, our financial security, the education of our children and the health of the nation. Thank for the forum
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:27 PM 		Jim Haas : PBS provided excellent coverage and analysis of both conventions - I wouldn't watch anyone else - keep up the great work.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:27 PM 		Margaret McClements : I watch the NewsHour almost every evening and delight in the news coverage and its presentation. It is excellent. As a Professional woman who has worked for the ERA and encouraged other women to seek whatever heights they would like to attain. I was appalled with Cindy Palin's introduction of herself onto the National Stage. Have you ever heard a more razor tongued man or woman? I have not. To me she presented herself as the epitome of the wicked stepmother - No, you cannot have the best of everything. When you need support from me you won't get it. If I can buzz saw these opponents I can buzz saw anyone who does not agree with me, or does not see things my way. - my paraphrase of what I heard underlying her words. And there was all the Republicans there rejoicing at every sentence. Is this what America has come to? I hope not. On politics I have an open mind and strive to know all I can learn about candidates I am about to vote for. I had no idea who Obama was when his name appeared. I bought his books and learned his biography and was impressed. He is honest and cares about not just people but all of us as a country. (and she belittled all of that) I no more like the Democratic Party than the Republican. Each, as a party, exhibit good points and poor. But when it comes to individuals to represent us I look for competence and what I personally consider a Right Attitude or good past performance. Palin blew it with her speech which was so very nasty. This evening watching the News Hour I learned she did not write the speech herself. There was very little there that told us who she is or has been, so I am even more left with only the delivery of all those very snide remarks, so well delivered, but for me so ill received. Don't the republicans know that they have made a mess of the last 8 years. Printing money, which reduces the value of each and every dollar, to pay the bills for all the mistakes they have made, intentionally or unintentionally. Anyone other than the government apparently would be labelled and charged as a counterfeiter. We know a lot about John McCain and I no longer want to hear anything more from his choice of running mate. I hope that men as well as women will see the crudity of the presentations we have seen and heard from the Republican Convention. Now for the campaign what will they pull on us this time after the last two Presidential elections. Are we, the electorate, going to see Good Sense and Truth in the messages from each candidate and their associates?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:21 PM 		Lanny : watching your coverage on the RNC I was wondering why no one asked the republicans, why women would support Palin because of her stand on the Iraq war. Also it would be nice to have some one else with Mark Shields other than David Brooks he seems like a republican to me. I think its time to start asking some tough questions?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:14 PM 		norm : just saw this on Now. Award-winning radio and television host Amy Goodman. Goodman was arrested while questioning police about the detention of two of her show's producers during their coverage of street demonstrations at the Republican National Convention thanks David. All the balloons more important for news hour news, China gets closer all the time. JMHO
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:14 PM 		Mrs. M.O. : This is an emotional note. I love Brooks and Shields and I don't ever want the NewsHour to go off the air. They were both great tonight.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:13 PM 		Molly Coddle : Does anybody think that the American public thought it was a good idea for democrats to take a vacation while the rest of us suffered, the economic down turn is closely related to our failure to do something now about oil!!!!! Windmills, solar power and batteries just don't cut it at the moment!!!! The liberal talking heads look and sound like they are out of their heads, an obvious desperation that is obvious for all to see!!!!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:08 PM 		A PBS viewer : I thought your coverage was excellent, particularly exchanges between Lehrer, Shields, and Brooks. I could have done without your resident historians--a bit redundant and dull. Amy Walter and Andy Kohut good but please spare us any further appearances by Mme. Duvall. Polls and focus groups are meant to be non-partisan; she was blatantly partisan and abrasive as well!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:08 PM 		Molly Coddle : Wow, I'm totally bewildered, it seems that liberals and democrats still don't get it, it's all over, Obama has been exposed, what has he done? What has he accomplished? If the race was between Obama and Palin for President, as the press seems to want, Palin would win, hands down, democrats are in real trouble!!!!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:06 PM 		Mike Beaver : I am particularly impressed with David Brooks and his insight into this process. The question was asked tonight: What is this election about? I think it is hope vs fear, thought and analysis vs shoot from the hip.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:05 PM 		Ruth : One of the things that John McCain said at the Republican National Convention that I felt needed clarification, or at least pointing out by your pundits: The Republicans were in control of the White House since 2000, of the Congress from 1992-2006, and large enough in number in 2006-2008 to stop legislation. Now McCain wants "change". "Change" is being loosely and is undefined like "winning in Iraq". What does he mean by change? Is he planning to change himself? Secondly, some of your pundits have said it is not fair to look into Palin's daughter's pregnancy. I am not a voyeur, but I was interested because I, for one, wanted to know how Palin would stand on issues as abortion, teen pregnancy, birth control, and sex education. I wanted to know how a mother can subject her teen-age daughter to the public coverage that she knew she would attract. And, as a single working mother, I wanted to know how many staff members she was able to employ to help her take care of her family.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:03 PM 		Janet Unitan : Thank you for Shields and Brooks comments on Rep. Convention and particularly the comparison of John McCain in 2000 and 2008 because I have been feeling the same thing about him. I agree. There is less of a "maverick" feel about him and his campaign is too negative and not reaching major concerns. Albeit Sarah Palin makes him seem younger, it concerns me deeply to have her that close to the Oval Office, if elected. (She does not reflect the same values as me). As an aside, I'm a mother of two children and I WOULD like to know how she is handling her family and work. Not to make her wrong but to honestly see how she is dong it. It would benefit us all to see that.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:02 PM 		rk : Thought provoking, objective reporting. Jim, your program has always inspired a new level of trust in me. Your questions are presented without bias or provocation. Simple, honest, searching. In recent years I have resented Mark's cynical and condescending comments but I have gained a great new respect for his concise, intelligent and critically pointed yet cogent comments. He has a clear agenda and doesn't mask or couch his convictions in pleasantries. Dave has continuously brought a fresh, pertinent perspective to the conservative table. He is conversant on such a variety of subjects and expresses the most complex issues with concise and persuasive, common sense conclusions. Thank you for making what might have been two weeks of chaos into a colorful, cohesive canvas that is sure to receive a lot of passionate brush strokes over the next 8 weeks. RK Galloway Orem, Utah
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:01 PM 		Ray : Jim, my complements to you and your entire staff for excellent coverage and analysis of both conventions. I especially appreciate your leadership and the comments from Mark Shields and David Brooks. Good work, job well done! Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
11:01 PM 		Pat : First rate. I have appreciated it all, especially Sheilds and Brooks. If you continue to use the two pollsters in future broadcasts, as Judy indicated, you should rein in the woman who constantly pushes McCain's views or get someone on from Obama's side to offset her. Though I liked the nonpartisan commenter, she doesn't offset the pushiness of the McCain supporter.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:56 PM 		Barbara : You are my heroes!!! I brag on the Newshour all the time. Wouldn't think of watching any other coverage of the conventions. I love the triumvirate but thank you also for the excellent reporting and interviewing by all your other staff as well. Worderful variety and balance. Two full weeks of Conventions and my favorite PBS night--Fridays with Newshour, Washington Week, and Moyers Journal--"Heaven, I'm in heaven..." Thank you for setting the standard for civil discourse, not allowing guests to interrupt or talk over each other. Would that others would follow suit! Bless you all!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:55 PM 		SC Chiu : Thank you very much for the convention coverage. I think your team did a great job bringing perspectives, history, and poll information into the process. I am bothered, though, by the Republican pollster's opinions (which are reminiscent of talking points from the McCain campaign) in this Friday's interview conducted by Judy Woodruff. Did the pollster give any concrete evidence or poll numbers to support her arguments? In contrast, the other pollster in the same interview and the pollsters interviewed during the convention coverage were all very informative. I hope to see more pollsters of this latter kind to be invited to your program.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:53 PM 		Betsy Walters : Why do you allow Democratic pollsters to give two sides of an issue and then allow Republican pollsters to spout party rhetoric as fact? over and over again! You danced all around the real issues in subsequent portions of tonight's program. Mc Cain did not only give a generalized "feel good " speach. He also laid out all the reactionary points as his own.He spoke about,off shore drilling, privatizing schools, and more deregulation. Another thing which really rankled... is anybody going to research the allegation tha Palin tried to censor books in the public library? By the way, I watch your show every night with almost religious devotion, so I'm not trying to trash you, just asking for more assertive reporting. Thanks, Betsy Walters Gardena, Ca 90248
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:52 PM 		Truth in reporting PLEASE! : S.J. Kayser : Why didn't you report the police action occuring outside the convention when Amy Goodman and others of the press were arrested? The news hour needs more news and less opinion!!!!! WHAT? Why do we never hear the news anymore? or the truth? We need Ed Murrow back!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:47 PM 		nicholas Evanchik : You are my favorite channel for extended discussion of important subjects. I believe your entire team is outstanding in every respect. Your coverage of the conventions was comprehensive and intellectually stimulating, free of entertainment characteristics. For diversity I switched to other channels from time to time but always returned to JL, his guests and his associates.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:45 PM 		Rose : I am very alarmed at McCain's choice for a running mate and I was disappointed that the coverage did not include a harder look at her total lack of qualifications to be the VP of our country. If McCain wins, he will be the oldest president we have had with one of the least qualified, vicious minded VP's the country has seen. It looks to me like this is the Bush's Republican Party's plan to continue the same divisive politics that are presently destroying our country. I believe there are many reasonable republicans out there but we never hear about them because the neo-conservatives have taken over the party. I liked McCain but it seems he has had to sell his soul to the forces that destroyed him in 2000 so that he could try and be elected. Is the real John McCain in there somewhere? I guess not since he chose such an obnoxious candidate for VP.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:41 PM 		Suzanne : I think that Sarah Palin was very selfish to expose a tiny baby to the noise, lights, germs and general chaos of the convention. She did not have his best interests in mind. She just wanted to show off in front of the conservatives how she can do it all. The real question is how well can she do it all - are her kids and husband getting enough attention or is it always all about her? I think she is a good speaker but more style than substance. There are only so many hours in a day. I am grateful for PBS coverage. I hate commercials.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:39 PM 		Alice Weit : Jim Lehrer and group did a fabulous job on the convention coverage. I call Brooks and Shields - "Brooke Shields" They are phenomenenal -- and give us good opinions. I look foreward to them every night, especially Friday for "Brooks Shields". Their choice of guests are excellent and put a different spin on each point of view. Fantastic.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:39 PM 		Vaccaro : I would like you to please take on and combat the issue of thousands of voting machines that are paper free and tamper evident. This steals our elections from us and is a direct contradiction to a democracy. These machines can be hacked. Remember the memo that Bush got from the manufacturer of the machines a few years back?? "We are committed to your success" Well they still are and we are in deep trouble with these faulty machines (and also with Fox News being so very biased).
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:39 PM 		Oregon Mom : Linda Duvall is completely off base and has no poll data to back up her ridiculous position. I voted for Hillary and I absolutely will vote for Obama. Anna Greenburg was right - I am totally insulted that the Republicans think I am so stupid that I would vote for McCain/Palin solely because she is a woman! Hello??? Women are smart enough to look at ISSUES not gender to make decisions. Linda Duvall was purely a "spinster" not a "pollster" in her interview tonight. What a joke! Anyone with half a brain could see right through that. That was not an interview worthy of PBS. I'm totally disappointed.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:38 PM 		Ralph & Pearl Ward : THANK YOU for terrific coverage of both conventions. It is great to hear Shields and Brooks as well as your regular crew of Judy, Gwen,and Ray. They are so knowledgable and reliable. Plus your historians. The program couldn't be better. We saw them all.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:37 PM 		Eugenia Christensen : I am 95 years old and this is my first response to a request for a comment. Born in South Carolina on July 4, 1913, I did not know what a "Republican" was until I went to New York when I was 40. However, I have watched the PBS news hour since I first had a television.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:37 PM 		Ericsen : I think that we are in deep trouble. McCain is dilusional and totally unable to make a responsible or trustworthy decision. Palin is a sociopathic and corrupt person on all levels. She has to be tutored on all levels, reads a fake speech tht Bush people wrote and is hiding from being discovered by the press. Funny how they grill everyone and even make up fake stories on everyone, yet they can hide from scrutiny??? Palin is dangerous, She is a sadistic and brutal as well as a neo-conservative that thinks that her opinions on religion and what schools should teach our kids should be forced down the throats of Americans, even though her so called beliefs failed her own daughter. She is an oil executive, pro-gun lobby, Brutal hunting lobby (not for food survival but for "pleasure" -see AP's photo and article about Conservationists that cant corral Palin. It is horrendous and shows her killing a suffering Caribou and smiling whilst it screems and bleeds from the throat while her litte child watches!!!!! Her so called "family values"??? She is a horror on all levels as a person and totally unqualified to be VP or more importantly President. She also was part of an organisation in the 1990's that wanted Alaska to succede from the USA!!!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:35 PM 		Bob Jacobson : Excellent .....but it reinforces my desire to vote for a third party .... as a "Paulist" I am going Liberterian or Constitutional ....the two party system just doesn't do it anymore for me. Please give the other parties some in depth coverage and review ...Moyers has ... need more of it.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:35 PM 		Christina : PBS has long been my only choice for convention coverage. Special kudos for including the DNC's eloquent speeches from ordinary people-like "Barney Smith"- that other networks omitted. I have long been a fan of Shields and Brooks for presenting thoughtful commentary across the political spectrum, but I am now wondering if David Brooks should remain a voice on this usually well-balanced show, in light of a string of patently partisan comments on the News Hour and his unbelievably mean-spirited NY Times column following Obama's acceptance speech. PBS 's reputation for a better standard in journalism should be better honored.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:30 PM 		longtime viewer : After watching both conventions, I am feeling very tired of the same old commentators on the Newshour. I can predict exactly what David Brooks and Mark Shields are going to say. The same with the historians. I think the GOP conventions was the worst and some of the commentary didn't seem to add up to what I saw. I watch faithfully but I need some new faces. David Brooks is everywhere I read and listen lately. Please refresh your programming.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:28 PM 		Steve : Betsy's comments below are more of the same garbage I'm talking about. She believes that without a "Harvard degree" that one must be less than qualified to be successful. If you look at statistics of start up businesses in the United States today, you will find that overwhelmingly they are founded by those who don't even have a college education at all! And America's small businesses are the backbone of our economy! College grads... mostly educated fools as my grandpa called them. Betsy (comments below) is also out of touch with America. I suppose that we should give college grads two votes in this election just because they are "smarter" than the rest of us. If college grads are so smart, then why do we have a multi-billion dollar deficit, inflation beyond our control, and idiots that don't even understand our own plain and simple U.S. Constitution? Pull your head out Betsy! -Steve
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:27 PM 		Russ Chipman : The Republicans were mentioning their displeasure about news media and it does not take long listening to the socialist Mark Shields or to the conceited and arrogant David Brooks. I dislike reporters that give their personal views that slant towards the party they favor. That Brooks acts like he could stand up in front of 39 million people and do a much better job speaking and the major league A.H. Shields with his derogotory comments towards Republicans are so outlandish and nobody is there to rebut what he says, but never mind that, Pbs has had a sophisticated attack against the Republican administration for 7 plus years now, enough that I do change the channel. Please bring me back so that I can listen to an unbiased reporting.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:27 PM 		Eugenia Christensen : Thank you for the xcellent coverage of both conventions. I am 95 years old and have been watching PBS for 50 years (more or less). I grew up in South Carolina and had never seen a Republican until I was in high school. I am delighted to have lived long enough to see both a "lady" and a "colored" man run for President of the U.S.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:25 PM 		Travis Minot, ND : I was also impressed with your coverage of both conventions, it was nice being able to watch them both. I found it interesting how Mark and David had the gloves on for the Democratic convention in criticism and not for the the Republican. I just want to know how the Republicans can portray Sarah Palin as the most experienced candidate in the campaign and still have her in the VP position on the ticket. Thanks again for your reporting (Jim, Mark and David.)
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:20 PM 		Marian : The News Hour is the best reporting on TV. Mark Shields and David Brook are excellent in their comments and very fair. Thank all the team for your reporting of the convention.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:18 PM 		Steve : I watched both the PBS coverage of RNC of McCain's acceptance, as well as the PBS Newshour coverage today (Friday,) and I can say that both Shields and Brooks represent the typical "out of touch" elitist attitude that is being so often spoken of these days. Why? This is evident in both Shields and Brooks agreeing that they were disappointed because there was no "policy" in what was being said. This is why they are out of touch... Overwhelmingly, Americans don't want policy and promises and complicated schemes on how to get it done. They rather want the bottom line. Would you want to hear all about Wal-Mart's business policies, or just find your item and get out? People feel cohesiveness with Palin and McCain because they don't beat around the bush. They tell the truth, they get to the point, and they understand what people are craving. Truth. Integrity. Follow through. Shields and Brooks are entrenched in their own elitist world, and need to get out and listen to America and shut out what their colleages are saying. Get outside and really understand Americans. We don't need smoke blown up our backside anymore! Open your mind, and pull your head out. -Steve
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:17 PM 		Norman Manoogian : My wife and I have watched the Jim Lehrer newshour every night for the last year and were most impressed on his unbiased and accurate coverage of up-to-date news. Most recently the coverage of both the Democratic and Republican Conventions were outstanding. The sensitivity of the staff in asking questions were most respectful but direct. I was disappointed during the last day of the Republican convention that there was so little time, if any, for a critique of the one speaker and the beginning of the next speaker. As a whole though, I felt the knowledge as to what the supporters and candidates said, and with what the analysts' critiques presented, has given me a better understanding of what the two parties REALLY believe.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:17 PM 		Betsy R. : I'm really confused. In my American upbringing, education counts for something. Why am I not hearing analysis of the glaring discrepancy between windfall Governor Sarah Palin's limited education compared to the remarkable accomplishments of the other candidates? Does she have a college degree? In what field? And with what academic accomplishment? This is an angle decidedly ommitted by your analyses. Isn't this patronizing? How can anyone imagine that a limited educational background could stand against Barack Obama's outstanding Harvard credentials? And education does substitute for "experience" to some degree. At least that's what they tell you when you apply for a job without it. The press has made known that John McCain graduated last in his class, comparable to the unremarkable educational qualifications of President Bush. Is it some kind of Political faux pas to be frank about this area of background and qualification? Why isn't Barack O'bama's State Senatorial experience added to the discussion? Are you suggesting that it doesn't compare to Ms. Palin's PTA experience? Please enlighten us about the facts. What I heard suggested is that if Sarah Palin can memorize a political speech created for her and deliver it with some style and drama, she suddenly qualifies for the highest office of the land. How can a single speech, contrived by speech writer hacks, change the course of human history unless we just aren't listening and thinking. That's what education gives us--or is supposed to: the ability to think past the glitz and passion and to focus on the intelligence of the message. Thank you, Mark Shields, for reminding your colleagues that even a "successful" speech can't be the primary qualification for a potential future President. It's incomprehensible that David Brooks and "the historians" seemed to think so. John McCain was visibly doddering. Watch the footage again. I'm terrified that this ambitious, untested woman could assume the Presidency should John McCain's health decline. As for attracting the Hillary women, that's an extraordinary insult. We may wish to see a woman in the white house, but she has to have more than good legs and a winning smile!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:17 PM 		John Wilson : Twice now, I've seen you guys interview a panel of four journalists, asking their opinions on the public reactions to the nominees. Three of the four are predictably in favor of McCane and one of the four, a very eloquent black lady from Kansas City, is highly favorable to Obama. That's sure not the kind of balance I've come to expect on the News Hour. And is the implication that mostly blacks like Obama. I'm a 73 year old white veteran and I can tell you I like him very much. Like Abe Lincoln he has limited experiance, but as with all great leaders, his words MOVE people. (Just what our nation and this old world needs right now.)
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:15 PM 		Merrily Stover : Thank you so much for your coverage of both conventions. I deeply appreciate the time and energy of so many people to bring us this coverage. I especially appreciate the insights of Mark Shields and David Brooks. They are one (two) of the main reasons I tuned in. Also, Jim Lehrer's calm and steady hand (and returning smile). :) Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:14 PM 		patd : Many thanks to the News Hour: Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields and David Brooks for their coverage of both conventions in such an intelligent, unbiased way. Their recollection of history in the political field helped viewers balance what we were hearing today with years of past events which most of us probably had forgotten. We have a lot to think about.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:12 PM 		Don Griffey : Jim Lehrer's format was far superior to the other outlets. They allowed those interviewed to be Dems and Repubs and the mix of historians with David and Mark providing analysis with historical context was brilliant. After the first night I found myself looking forward the next night. It was the best coverage I have seen.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:12 PM 		TC : Thank you again for great coverage of the conventions. I enjoy hearing the full speeches in addition to the comments from Shields and Brooks and the historians.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:11 PM 		Barri : Thank you, Mark Shields, David Brooks and you too, Jim for the friendly feeling amongst the three of you during your analysis. I always find your analysis illuminating. I spent the bulk of two weeks watching the conventions. It's important that the rest of the country have access. And when the candidates start dealing with the issues (global warming, economy, jobs, the War in Iraq, terrorism etc.)I look forward to your coverage and analysis. Thank you again.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:11 PM 		David Thew : I thought your men espcially Mark was totaly out of your hate for children and conservatives. You are a team who is so liberal that I will no longer give to PBS EVER!!! yOU DO HATE US WITH ALL OF YOUR HEART DON'T YOU. You are so left in your thinking objectivity is impossible for you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:09 PM 		Dick : The three of you (Jim/David/Mark) did an outstanding job. I especially look forward to the Newshour every Friday night hearing the same point being covered from different viewpoints (sans histrionics) Keep up the good work.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:09 PM 		S.J. Kayser : Why didn't you report the police action occuring outside the convention when Amy Goodman and others of the press were arrested? The news hour needs more news and less opinion!!!!!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:08 PM 		Marcy Smith : My husband and I are regular listeners to the News Hour. Previously we have requested that you replace David Brooks - who does not represent the Conservative viewpoint with someone who does - like Rich Lowry! Now, after the two conventions, please: DUMP THEM BOTH: DAVID AND MARK! We've had it with their biased analyses which, especially for us Conservatives, is so totally off base! As to specifics: David Brooks does not have even the slightest grasp of the Conservative/Christian Worldview, the true basis of the Conservative point of view; a true Conservative does not support the destruction of the marriage covenant of a man and a woman; nor can he be in favor of destroying innocent human life in the womb. And as for Mark, on these issues he is the same as David; in addition, he cannot see past his ultra liberal bias to come anywhere near grasping - let alone presenting - what the truth is! Add to this his hypocrisy - one cannot be a Catholic and support an OBAMA/BIDEN candidacy. For shame!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:08 PM 		Liselotte Ryan : I thought the coverage of both conventions was exceptional. The format having historians and commentators was a brilliant idea. The one thing that I have noticed is the absence of comments about the makeup of the conventioneers. The Democratic convention had a very diverse group whereas the Republican convention was almost totally white. When the speeches got dull, we were looking for ethnic faces other than white and found very few! Do you think that others also noticed that and it will in some way make a difference in voting?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:08 PM 		apm : Re: the RNC and L.A.'s comments: It should be pretty obvious that McCain dosn't want or need pity. He wants us to know who he is as a result of his life journey. He dosn't want "payback", he wants Russia, Iran, etc. to respect the US. (as you know respect-equals feeling a healthy fear in the real world, the last time I checked). Palin isn't a beauty queen-she is a woman who has worked hard, is very pretty, and really almost has it all. Easy and fun to hate , huh ? Suport of abstinence and kids making mistakes (that hurt only themselves and are not inherently evil nor break any law,) are not contradictory things, just humanity in motion. Palin isn't going into government to tell others what to do. She has personal beliefs like most people do. Her politics need not reflect all her personal beliefs, but certainly, Creationism is an idea just like any other and should be presented in education like any other idea. I say this even though I don't agree with this idea because I am fair minded. God knows how much interpretation and opinion is in current school texts. If FACTS only are presented, and beliefs explained, students can learn facts, not choose lifestyles in school. Folks that poorer people call wealthy may actually be the backbone of the nation-the small businesses and manufacturers we need that keep the economy going, (not only "Big Oil", etc). They are the "middle class". Home Depot employs millions. And finally, government run health care WILL tell you what you can and cannot do unless we out and out become a Socialist state and do like the UK and pay for EVERYTHING with no pre-conditions, etc.. Not a bad idea, but - you think it's do-able here and now ? Money will just continue to line the pockets of administrators in super-large agencies that are supposed to HELP. Those agencies are run by Democratic cronies, equally corrupt as Republican ones. Can you picture all Obama's friends running self-esteem and after-school programs for the masses, collecting millions and increasing the voter base for themselves with no measurable difference really being made in anyone's life ? Not saying this will happen, but just look at similar scenarios everywhere..... Just some facts....and p.s. - it's affront, not affrontal
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:08 PM 		Esoteric : Again, it was PBS which provided the most extensive and impartial coverage of both conventions (Even when commentators were obviously biting their tongues). I watched both conventions in their entirety and appreciated the ability to do so without any editor censuring or determining what they thought I'd like to - or should hear.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:06 PM 		S.J. Kayser : Why didn't you report on what was happening outside the convention. Amy Goodman and her press collegues were arrested, and they weren't even protesting!! The News Hour has morphed into too much opinion, and not enough facts!! You are becoming like the candidates!!! Help, help.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:05 PM 		Paula Freedman : Convention and campaign coverage on The News Hour is superb. I wouldn't think of tuning in anywhere else. I'm particularly impressed with the analyses of Shields and Brooks who provide consistently balanced, thoughtful and intelligent commentary. The News Hour provides an oasis of reason in an otherwise strident, repetitive and generally partisan realm of televised reporting.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:05 PM 		Naomi Z. : We watched both conventions from beginning to miserable end (yes, I am an Obama supporter!). Your coverage was invaluable. The analysis of Brooks and Shields as well as the historians was a real enrichment. I think that Mark Shields is BRILLIANT! as for David Brooks, my husband and I look upon his critiques with great respect. He could be my Republican friend!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:04 PM 		joy ernst : Couldn't make ourselves switch the channel away from PBS. Ignored our policy to switch off the TV during dinner in order not to miss Shields and Brook. Keep the good words coming. Have to admit we did not watch much of the NRC. Feared indigestion. Keep up the good words.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:03 PM 		Henry Harwell : Amazingly (well maybe not quite), PBS ran fairly complete coverage of the RNC shindigs -- versus the standard fare provided by the other national networks, at least around here in Phoenix. I was rather proud of the civic commitment and pubic service. Same for the Green Party (Nader's coming out) and Bob Bahr's onslaught?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:03 PM 		Joe Merz : I could not believe pbs would interview Ralph Reed after we all now know of his criminal behavior with Abramoff on the casino con. I have read his greedy, irreverant emails demanding more of the "take." How could you legitimize this unindicted criminal? Shame, forever, shame.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:02 PM 		Mary : Thank you for your extended broadcast on this most important election. A lot is at stake in this moment of history, and you chose to cover it as such. All of your chosen commentators showed class, extreme intelligenct AND stamina. Well done Jim, too, for your stamina following your health situation. I admire your fortitude. Your broadcast was the one I watched well over the other limited versions. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for all you do! Mary Zeigler Gainesville, FL
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:01 PM 		Violet : I watched nearly all of both conventions and loved to see the "regulars" give their views on what was going on. Thank you. I do wonder, when so much emphasis has been placed on biography, why we hear ten times that McCain was a POW and never about why he dumped his first wife for Cindy. Doesn't that say anything about his character? Even when his whole family was up there and three of the children are older than the current marriage, nothing was said.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:59 PM 		Mary : Excellent coverage. Well co-ordinated and balanced. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:58 PM 		mike : just want to iterate jim's thanks to shields and brooks for being there throughout the conventions. their thoughtful and insightful analysis, as always, much appreciated!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:57 PM 		Alice Johnson : This coverage is the best I have seen for political conventions. I believe more time should have been given to Obama regarding his experience in congress(voted 'present' instead of 'yes' or 'no' on 130 bills, voted on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security,opposed to any efforts to privatize Sicial Security,opposed the Patriot Act, in 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing as being too severe, supports universal health-care). His first goal after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations-This candidates actions speak louder than his words!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:47 PM 		jane : I love your analysts! David and Mark are fantastic. I am a business executive; a woman. I have voted across party lines since my first presidential election in 1980. Your show is the only truly balanced, historically knowledgeable, insightful report. I actually feel happy and secure (but no more certain about my vote this year) when I hear them speak. Keep it up! (I donate, too.)
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:46 PM 		Janet : Thank you so much for your coverage of the conventions. Had it not been for you, I would never have watched them because the other channels were more interested in what they had to say than covering the speakers and events. You actually allowed us to listen to entire speeches. Your commentary was appropriate and useful. I love Brooks and Shields. Everyone did an excellent job. I appreciate it very much.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:41 PM 		j hiller : I don't like coments about what I just watched I don't need someone to tell me what it means. And sometimes you talk while someone else is speaking . And what about Ron Paul not a word from his convention, maybe he is what we really need.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:39 PM 		Donna Graves : For the most part, I have greatly appreciated the Newshour's convention coverage of both conventions. However, tonight I was astounded at the performance of the Republican pollster talking with Judy Woodruff and a Democratic pollster about "the women's vote." The Republican pollster, who was introduced as an advisor to the McCain campaign, did not talk substantively about what polls have shown about womens' views on the election. She transparently parroted soundbites from the McCain campaign. I recognize that PBS tries to include a range of views, but she was serving as a shill in a setting that required analysis.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:38 PM 		Tom Menten : News hour is great. Shields and brooks are stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:31 PM 		wimsey : I am quite distressed by the tendency of Ms. Woodruff, and to some extent Ms. Ifill, to allow participants such as Linda Duval to make lengthy campaign statements in lieu of answering the questions they have been asked. The other speaker spoke about the groups she interviewed, Ms. Duval told us why the Republican ticket is so great. It is the role of the moderator to keep such things from happening. Please keep the objectivity of your reporting a priority
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:29 PM 		Edward and Elizabeth Burns : We have tried to get all of our friends to watch the convention coverage (DNC or RNC) on PBS vs any other source(CNN, etc). Not only do we highly respect the opinions of Shields and Brooks, the broadcasts are fair and balanced, and, there are no commercials. We have watched PBS and the News Hour for as long as it existed. Thank you very much. We live in a motor home as "full-time RVers" (we own no home)and donate money to PBS and NPR TV and Radio stations around the country, wherever we are. Sincerely, Ed and Betty Burns P.S. Just finished watching "Washington Week" with Gwen Ifill, whom we saw in Tampa, FL, and can't say enough good things about her also.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:25 PM 		Bob : I will never contribute to PBS again after watching the bias shown in coverage of the conventions. Shields and brooks, both favor Obama should have covered Obama you should have had a better balance and replaced Brooks with someone that would stand up and not be milk toast for Shields. Bob
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:23 PM 		Becky : PBS did a fantastic job in covering the conventions. I did not intend to watch so many hours but got sucked into the fascinating conversations/comments of Lehrer, Brooks & Shields, your historians, et al. I look forward every week to Brooks & Shields, enjoying their insights,their occasional bits of humor and the good relationship they project. Bless the News Hour for its civil discourse, no shouting and interrupting of each other as differing points of view are expressed. Long may you live!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:17 PM 		Susan : I so appreciated your coverage and comments for both campaigns. You are the only place on television where I can get multiple view points and I have come to appreciate and depend on what I hear from David Brooks and Mark Shields every week and especially found their comments to be so enlightening during the conventions. The perspectives of the three historians and Andrew Kohut were fabulous additions! Gwen and Judy were excellent too! Don't know why every TV viewer doesn't choose PBS!!!!!!! Thanks for a job so well done.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:16 PM 		ap : I have watched Gwen Ifill admiringly for years. However I was unpleasantly dissapointed at the way she nuanced her questions during tonights discussion with reporters about the RNC. Her personal preferences and upset at RNC anger at the press should not color her performance at PBS. Everyone seems to be unaware that human beings running for office and that the candidates they are talking about are not two-dimensional carboard cutouts. That is what actually makes this race interesting. You are making it boring by injecting so much personal slant, be it only by tone of voice. So please stop with the pigeonholing and branding and thinly disguised opinions dressed up as objective commentary. Kindly examine the facts a little more and make an attempt to try to understand paradoxical information. For example, if McCain is really whom he seems to be, it is extremely hard for him to effect the kinds of change he wants. He dosn't have the advantage of being sexy, interestingly bi-racial, angry, young, driven by personal identity issues, or easily lionizeable and brandable through association with recognizeable revolutionary leaders like Dr.King. The more THE PRESS pigeonholes and brands, the more decent candidates are forced to, also. The sight of a wise man trying to transcend politics in the vise of a political convention many not move those who thrive on politics, and the sight of a competent decent woman who happens to like the outdoors and church may not move those whom she does not resemble. But I liked them even though I don't agree with everything about them, and don't know every detail about Palin (did we about Obama? do we now ? what about ACORN?) and I'd like to see Gwen and others tone down their attempts to present them as 2-dimensional "more of the same" puppets. We have some genuinely great people running on both sides and I really think it's time for the media to stop trying to draw blood and leave that to the candidates. It's disgusting ! Thank you Robert McNeil for trying to focus on IDEOLOGY in your discussion. I don't think, though, that smart and nuanced as they are, your commentators "got it". It was about world/cosmic view, not about media coverage of Bristol, etc. Your question went to what the candidates believe in -beyond the labels attached to what they believe in. I'll tell you - McCain-honor and renewal of Western ideals (you would have to explain those terms nowadays), Palin-freedom and faith, Obama-racial justice and power for the powerless, Biden-more of the same-politics,politics,politics,hatchetman. Just my opinion.....I wouldn't put it this way if I were an interviewing journalist....I wonder if you will post this-mild criticism of you.......
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:16 PM 		gunther-ann arbor mi : I thought your coverage of the DNC was thorough and professional. Lack of commercial interruptutions kept my interest. The excellent coverage continued at the RNC. It was the content that made that show an ordeal. Thanks for entertaining me with the jokes about Brook's age. It made it bearable. If I see him at an airport bar I'll buy him a beer for that.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:11 PM 		Marie & Bill Higgins : While I grew weary of two weeks of convention coverage, mu husband watched it all. He alerted me whenever Shields and Brooks were with Jim Lehrer and they allowed me to feel informed without risk of complete political meltdown...We would not miss the Newshour or Washington Week in Review. Please know your programs are very much appreciated!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:08 PM 		Susan : I watched both the Democratic and Republican conventions and thought the coverage excellent. The only break was how gingerly Palin was discussed. She seemed something like a hot potato. My nieces have copied her picture from aol (the one where she is sitting on a bear skin) and they are using it as a dart board. One thing for sure, we are given a choice this year at the polls. Again, thank you for your intelligent, thorough, and interesting coverage of both campaigns.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:08 PM 		Elly Tierney : We tape the newshour so we can watch it every evening. You won over your competition with the Shields/Brooks coverage of the conventions. It was fantastic, no fanfare just good journalism. I wish you had Shields/Brooks every night!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:07 PM 		S. DeLany : Thank you for the great coverage and political analysis! I do not have cable and would have missed a great many of the speeches without you. Brooks, Shields, and Lehr were wonderful, as usual. I loved the historical perspectives. Was Gwen Ifill sick during the Republicn convention? She was very alert and perky during the Democratic convention but appeared very bored during the Republican convention. As to the lack of "diversity" at the Republican convention as compared to the Democratic convention, I did not notice it. Your viewers must have been mixing up the stadium event with the actual conventions. However, it should be noted that blacks (only 13% of the population) have shifted their collective voting block to Obama(90%)hence I would expect to see larger numbers of this group in the Obama audience. Again, great job, well done, and many thanks! S. DeLany
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:07 PM 		Andrei Manoliu : For McCain/Palin to change Washington, they would have to be able to promise to deliver changes in their congressional/senatorial corps. They will not change Sam Brownback on global warming or Mitch McConnell or Cronyn on their entrenched views about "facts." So they stand no chance. Certainly the democratic contingent will fight them, so no change there. Obama/Biden on the other hand can influence their congressional delegations, which will be majoritarian and will have new blood in them, just the same way that Bill Clinton/Al Gore did. So while I believe McCain genuinely hopes he can deliver change, he does not stand a chance. He has had 20+ yrs with his Senate colleagues and he has no following to speak of.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:05 PM 		Jeanette Boegl : Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I watched most of your coverage of both conventions, and although I'm firm in my choice of candidate, it was interesting and helpful to view both. Your crew was outstanding - all of them - and as unbiased as is possible in this day and age. Thanks to Jim Lehrer for his usual even and steady control, and thanks to PBS (and our local affiliate, KNME Albuquerque), for presenting the conventions and allowing us to draw our own conclusions. All this and no commercials!!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:04 PM 		Atlanta : Excellent coverage and reporting. Brooks and Shields were balanced, insightful, intelligent, respectful and I always appreciate the injected humor. Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Judy Woodruff, were superb as always. This news program is, by far, the best on television. PBS demonstrates and reflects consistently what television "ought to be" and takes it responsibility to communicate fully, objectively, and ethically without exception. I appreciate this stellar network, program, and the first class professionals associated with PBS.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:04 PM 		L.L. Walther : We must have all the information we can get. The role of the press in maintaining a healthy democracy is a vital one. Rulers of authoritarian regimes such as those of Russia or North Korea for example, understand that a vital press does not serve their interests and that to maintain power they need to keep their public uninformed. While we don’t know a whole lot about John McCain’s vice presidential running mate, Sara Palin yet, she has in her speech this week at the Republican National Convention announced her disdain for the press, a disdain that is not unlike of our current presidential administration. This should be reason enough for the American voter not to cheer Sara Palin, but rather to fear her.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:03 PM 		Gran'ma : Tonight, September 5, Shield's and Brooks were even better than their normal extraordinary selves. It can be hard for a grown-up to stomach campaign discussions; they are so often poisonous or defamatory or self righteous. Shields and Brooks are wonderfully well-informed and data-based in their work. Brooks deals in concepts and Shields deals in insights better than any other two, and Lehrer's questions have been so on point. Thank you all for the atmosphere of respect and humor. Thank you for working so hard for us. And -- again --- welcome back Jim.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
09:01 PM 		Elena Thompson : I watched most of the PBS coverage and have one suggestion. In place of conversations with pollsters, can we not have conversations with public office holders on their way up the ladder? This week was the first time I had seen a network interview with the Governor of Hawaii, much less the Governor of Alaska. These people should not be breaking onto the national scene two months before a presidential election. We ought to have met them along the way. Perhaps you can film feature interviews when there is enough time for a reflective conversation, and then replay them as election time nears. I live in a very small southern town, and count on you all to bring the wider world to my newscast. This from one loyal contributor to Georgia Public Broadcasting.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:59 PM 		Kate : The interview with Linda Duvall was extremely frustrating to me. I found her aggressive, abrasive manner and inability to respond with facts to be incredibly unprofessional and certainly not the sort of discourse that I expect to hear on the News Hour. In contrast, Anna Greenberg’s contributions to the discussion were insightful and her manner was gracious. It would have been preferable to have heard more of her findings and less of Duvall’s propaganda. I would like to reinforce the comments of many others and request that Linda Duvall not be invited back on your show.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:59 PM 		mcronin : The team of Lehrer, Shields, and Brooks is absolutely outstanding. Substantive issues are discussed insightfully, with various viewpoints, and at some length -- far superior to the way CBS, ABC, and NBC present the news, with their emphases on the "gotcha" and the controversial. Great job, PBS!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:56 PM 		Mai Kuha : Brooks & Shields are an integral part of any week, so two weeks of Brooks & Shields is a treat. Sometimes I am baffled by what goes on in politics (especially on the conservative side), and the weekly analysis really helps me understand, so many thanks.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:52 PM 		terry and trudy filer : We were impressed with the newshour's coverage of the national conventions .They were commercial free and the commentaries by Shields and Brooks were on the money. The views of the historians were also informative. This was so different from the major networks presentations . I would also add that I really enjoy the commentaries of Shields and Brooks on the newahour on Fridays . This news program is my main source of daily news . Keep it up .
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:49 PM 		wihi debralou : I am echoing a few who have asked the question, "What the hell is going on?" The preemptive strikes by police and the arrest and brutal force used on citizens and the PRESS--for goodness sakes. Amy Goodman, from Democracy Now-arrested along with her producers and others. This is what the Patriot Act brings us and NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT IT! Very scary.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:48 PM 		Norm Thayer : Amy, it was mentioned a couple of times that the delegates were 96% white. It was surprising to see the sea of white faces on the floor after seeing the diversity at the Democratic convention. I guess it says something about the two parties and how they reflect today's American society.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:47 PM 		L.A. : Because of John McCain, I have changed party affiliation. I think it's in very bad taste to use the 9/11 incident in his politics. I am very grateful that he served his country but lets face it....he has ridden this pity me POW routine to the hilt. I think it is offensive because it demeans the other POWs that have also gone throught the same thing if not worse and you never hear about them anymore. If McCain hadn't been an admiral's son, you wouldn't hear about him either. Palin, we don't need a beauty queen in the White House. It's annoying that she would be crying foul because anyone had the nerve to ask her any questions when she clearly went into this election knowing full well what the platform was, abstinance etc., and then to parade her daughter around. Soccer mom? If she were in my car pool, I'd dump her big mouth on the side of the road. She is an afrontal to woman. She has no class....she will never be a Hillary. People weren't voting for the woman, but for her views. The possibility of her being President makes me shudder to the very core...she has no experience either. The Republican Party talks to the American like they are a bunch of morons and I don't appreciate having my intelligence questioned. John McCain is always harping about Obama raising, interesting that he only choses to use those parts of sentences that suit him. John McCain is NOT interested in helping out the middle and lower class. He will continue with his tax cuts for the wealthy and business concerns. I've done my homework....he has said he will do with Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid what Bush couldn't. If you look at his face when he talks about war.......he wants payback and he will make the American public at large pay for what he suffered. Country first.....if you are one of the wealthy............this guy shouldn't even be allowed near anything nuclear. His temper is on record and if you look at what he says about his tax cuts, he will cut them where he can, meaning the wealthy. Pork barrel spending is another issue..Sarah Palin has gotten her share of that while she was in Alaska. Special interests and concerns......also, why does the Republican Party deem it necessary to constantly hide things? The President was told by the international community as well as the White House - Colin Powell, etc., that going to war with Iraq was a monumentaly bad idea. He chose to go anyway. Seriously, we can't afford anymore of this fighting amoung the people in the White House and the Republicans had their shot and look what they did. Palin thinks that the government should tell the people what they should do. H E L L O.....big talk for someone who can't even control her own family. She is making the female gender look bad. She wants to play with the big guys cries foul when questions are asked. Good pair, the pity me POW routine and the beauty queen, I can have everything big mouth....FRACTURED FAIRYTALES. If she gets in office, how are the kids going to have quality time with good ole mom? Oh yea, on another note......does she actually eat or kiss her husband with that mouth of hers? She is an embarassment.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:45 PM 		B.Hunt : Your coverage of the conventions is a real contrast to the self adulation of the Pundits on commercial channels. Shields and Brooks are a great during election coverage and always a must see every friday night.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:44 PM 		Norm Thayer : Thank you very much for your excellent coverage of both conventions. Thanks particularly to Mark Shields and David Brooks for their intelligent commentary and insights. It is great to listen to their exchanges which do an excellent job of clarifying the issues. I also enjoyed the input from your three historians, and your pollster. In fact all of your people did a wonderful job, much better than the major networks with their rudimentary coverage.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:42 PM 		Amy Harris : In general I thought the NewsHour team provided great coverage, with both side represented. However, I'm shocked that --- unless I missed it --- no one addressed that fact that the Republican convention delegates were almost totally white. Where was the African American and Hispanic representation?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:41 PM 		M. Rodey : My husband and I feel your convention coverage, as your coverage of all issues, was fair, complete, and unbiased. We had to be out of town during the lead up to and the Republican Convention; our hotel did not have PBS access and we were very disappointed. No one covers todays events and issues with the clarity and critical thinking that the Jim Lehrer News Hour does. We are extremely grateful for the style of reporting - the non-confrontational discussion of various view points - and both the reporters and guests who present them. We plan our Friday evenings around time with Brooks and Shields whom we appreciate and enjoy. Thank you for all you do to help us understand the complex issues we face today.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:39 PM 		patricia : I read Ryan's comment posted on Aug 26th and it is EXACTLY, word for word, what I wanted to say to you. THANK YOU, thank you, thank you for your excellent, consistent, down to earth, coverage of BOTH conventions. I didn't flip between stations, I didn't walk away from the screen between speeches because I so value the persons you had who were giving commentaries. Your panelists, convention floor coverage, thoroughness...everything was valuable to me. I commented several times to my husband how grateful I was feeling for the quality of what you produced for your viewers. I'm hoping for and looking forward to being with your entire crew again during the days ahead leading up to the elections. Bravo!!!! In regard to both the democratic and republican convention coverage - my thoughts echo Ryan's words about the democratic convention : "As a viewer, who does not have cable or satellite, it is so refreshing to be able to view the Democratic Convention in greater length than other networks. The in-depth coverage and conversation in-between speeches is outstanding. I cannot wait for similar coverage of the Republican Convention!" Thank you again for a job very, very well done!!! Appreciatively, Patricia
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:39 PM 		jackaubrey : Coverage was great: hasn't anybody thought that Gov. Palin is the only new face, after this endless primary season, and that's a reason for the great interest?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:37 PM 		DigbyP : Thank God for PBS. As a dedicated viewer and moderate I always appreciate the balance of NewsHour commentary AND hard news. The players (and their bias') are well known to us but at least each side gets a shot; imagine that,just like a real debate. As for your competitors, major network coverage (which I sampled while watching both conventions) remains cliched copycat infotainment while the "fair and balanced" "place for politics" channels are so laughable in their respective coverage slants as to not even warrant mention by name. Keep Shields and Brooks coming to our rescue.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:37 PM 		William : My hat's off to the Newhour's coverage of the two conventions. Thorough, balanced, insightful analysis by the newshour team and its regular experts provides a fantastic bird's eye view on the results of our American democratic presidential process. For the political junkie, the season is culminating into a fascinating cliffhanger... Bring on the debates!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:36 PM 		Tim Jackson : The commentary of Brooks and Shields is a highlight in my day. But, after listening tonight, Mr. Shields I would say this - yes, McCain would do better with the independents to run as an independent - but without the Republican base, he will lose. And that is his (McCain's) dilema and it will be his demise.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:34 PM 		Regina Deutsch : the PBS coverage of the conventions was superb...it was the best thing about both onventions..particularly the commentary by shields and brooks...also kohart... Linda Duval, tonite was too partisan...amy walters was more objective... Keep up the good work!!!!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:33 PM 		Tom : I think your coverage of both conventions was by far the best when compared to the other networks. You allowed us to listen to most of the speechs. You then had comments from Mr. Brooks and Mr. Shields, whom I enjoy listening to and have the utmost respect for. I also enjoyed hearing from the historians and learned some interesting facts. The bottom line is you did not overwhelm us with your own views - like the "talking Heads" from all of the other networks. Job well done !!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:33 PM 		Two Texas Democrats : Thank you for your in depth coverage of both conventions. We have never watched either convention before, but this year we watched both because The News Hour was covering it.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:32 PM 		Barbara Bacon : Thank you for the insightful, articulate commentary of Jim Lehrer, David Brooks and Mark Sheilds, not only during the conventions but regularly on the NewsHour. I appreciate the breadth and depth of information and comments as well as the civil manner of each discussion. Gwen Ifill and her guests on Washington Week in Review continue to make Friday evening a time of clarifiying issues and events. Thank you for both high quality programs.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:32 PM 		Josephine : Shields and Brooks help me put current politics into a better informed context. I thought the coverage over the past two weeks was invaluable. Thanks.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:32 PM 		Teri Doeberling : To Barb and Dave: OBVIOUSLY THE POLITICAL PROCESS BOORS YOU TO TEARS.I AM GUESSING THAT ALL THE ECONOMIC NEWS GOING ON DOES NOT TOUCH YOU AT ALL. I WISH YOU WOUYLD TAKE THE TIME TO LOOK AR UNBIAS4D HISTORICAL FACTS BEFORE YOU SHOOT OFF YOUR MOUTH.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:31 PM 		Russel Lane : Outstanding coverage on both conventions--the historical commentators were very interesting and fair in their assesments. Your reporting staff were very professional, not allowing their own personal politics bias their reporting--which is how they report on all political news. Bring them all back in 2012. I think the three major networks should forget about covering the conventions in the future. Their political bias seeps through, they have commericials and don't broadcast that much anyway. So keep up the good work!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:27 PM 		Ann : I am so appreciative of the commentary of Shields and Brooks. I count on them for balanced perspective. As a strong progressive, I don't trust most conservative commentators. David Brooks is the exception. And Mark Shields will also give credit to the other side when it is earned. Thank you! Keep this team!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:26 PM 		Pat Knodel : Thank you for your convention coverage. I have the highest regard for Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, and your entire reporting staff. PBS is where I get my news. I refuse to entertain opinions on the internet, and even the newspapers have problems with unbiased coverage. Keep up the good work. I am a loyal supporter of WHYY Wilmington-Philadelphia.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:25 PM 		Teri : I am already so tired as to how joe biden should approach sarah palin in the upcoming vp debate. she has already shown that as far as she is concerned everything is fair game. i am a 56 year old woman and i say if you want to play on the national stage and you are willing to adopt the karl rove way of conducting national politics then biden should be able to respond in kind!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:18 PM 		Mainer : Brooks and Shields did a great job. Only thoughtful and civil dialogue on any channel. Also,appreciate the extent of your coverage. Concern--some of the analysts end up sounding like advocates. The female Republican "pollster" this evening was particularly strident and inappropriate. Do not reduce your attention to this election. It is too important. Thanks
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:17 PM 		Richard Fullerton : Were it not for Jim Lehler, Brooks & Shields, I would have watched our local news station. The 3 Muskateers were GREAT! Stay on it!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:15 PM 		Lou Averageguy : I think your coverage of the conventions has been excellent. Turn you on every evening.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:15 PM 		norm : To Jim, , and all of you there at PBS who organized and set the tone and produced your coverageof the conventions:: I admire you greatly, you did a wonderful job, you support me in my belief that, though it may not seem so, there are indeed intelligent, competent, big minds out there trying to keep this country a good country. You have much, much to be proud of.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:15 PM 		Nana aka Yaya : Thank you to The NewsHour for offering intelligent, informed commentary and analysis from Brooks and Shields, and including analyses from presidential historians a longside the political analysts. That combination was very informative and enlightening. It is a bit worrisome to watch the media looking like it is trying not to look pro-Democratic Party or candidates. We need independent news programs to be unflinching in their observations and analyses of both sides. It is also troubling that no one on The NewsHour has questioned why Palin is being discussed as a so-called working Mom, but Michelle Obama is not. Nor did commentators question why Republicans who lauded Palin's daughter's unwed pregnancy, but called Michelle Obama, a married working mother as a "baby momma!"
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:12 PM 		Linda : I watched both the DNC & RNC. I purposely choose PBS for not only the full coverage. I also wanted an unbiased view from the panel and guests. I was very pleased with the extended coverage. This election is so important for our country. We need to be well informed. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:12 PM 		Rebecca : Why is the media NOT talking about Paliln's ethics charges (political and personal), her love of killing (big bucks for aerial hunting in Alaska), and why people would want a red-neck "hockey mom" instead of a competent, sophisticated, internationally savvy person for V.P.? Are you strong-armed by the powers-that-be into only being positive about republicans? There certainly were no-holds-barred when it came to investigating Hillary. Or Obama. Is the media enslaved to the privileged party?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:12 PM 		Jane B : At home, I don't have cable, and rely on PBS for all my TV viewing. I was on the road during the GOP convention and did a bit of channel-hopping in my motel room to see what other channels were providing. I returned to PBS all three evenings. Lehrer is a masterful host, and both Shields and Brooks are thoughtful commentators. As a strong liberal, I value Brooks and Shields' intelligent and respectful exchange of views. Tonight's discussion (Friday, September 5) was especially rich.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:12 PM 		Tony Deal : I'm 47 and watch The NewsHour daily. I wait for Friday's primarily for Shields and Brooks. The coverage was slightly lacking. I have to agree with earlier comments concerning covering the protests (on both sides). I think it would have been helpful to have a list of issues, and ask those present where their candidate stands on those issues. I doubt most would truly know. It has been primarily a personality contest, and I'm afraid that the American people are being short changed by the lack of specifics, on both sides. I thought the media were there to ask the tough questions, intelligently, lacking prejudice, to help the public make an informed choice. I certainly hope PBS, and the NewsHour in particular, will press for clear answers. You all are wonderful, and refreshing in tone, but get tough... :-) Thanks for a job done better than the rest. Tony D - Austin Tx
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:10 PM 		Margaret wilson : PBS was the only station that allowed us to listen to the convention speakers. The coverage you provided was so superior to other channels! The commentary was thoughtful and concise. thank you!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:09 PM 		Kathy DeWine : I am so disappointed in the obvious bias in your coverage of the two conventions. My husband and I support pbs and public radio, and I am a loyal watcher / listener for the different qualities you bring to the conversations of intellectual discourse and good manners, whether or not I agree with you positions. You all appeared to be bored with the Republican convention before it started, certainly dismissive of its potential for being worthy of your serious engagement. Gwen Ifill, usually so enthusiastic and gracious, appeared to be totally removed from the people and the ideas being expressed by those she interviewed. The energy with which you reported on the Democratic convention was dissipated this week as you forced yourselves to go through the motions of presenting the other side of this election process. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, and I have been undecided about my own vote. I had counted on you to present openly and fairly, despite my realization that most of you lean left, as you say. Shame on you!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:09 PM 		Colleen : Thank you PBS for your news reporting of the recent DNC and RNC! I have been watching the other sexier network news stations for years. I have been growing disenchanted, resentful and depressed over their coverage and exagerations of current events. I started watching your fair, intellegent and civilized coverage of the political conventions and am now a devoted follower of the Jim Lehrer News Hour. Thank you for staying true to objective, unbiased and intellegent reporting!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:08 PM 		Amelia : I was very disturbed by the comments of the Republican woman during your interview about women voters. She didn't talk about what woman were thinking based on polls. She was pushing her own opinion and trying to promote McCain and Palin. It made the discussion very unbalanced because the other woman was not pushing to promote a candidate but report her findings. If the Republican woman can't stick to reporting the facts, get her off of there.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:07 PM 		Kathleen : Years ago I was a gopher at PBL. As a result of that experience, I am a news junky who watches 3 news show each evening, reads 4 magazines from cover to cover each week. These last 2 weeks have been a delight for me because of the nightly appearance of Sheilds & Brooks. Their nightly analysis have become the highlight of the day. Many thanks for the to all who make this possible
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:07 PM 		Garry Clark : I have viewed convention coverage on PBS and the other networks. I had hoped to find PBS "balanced"! But Brooks and Shields had thier minds made up even before the week started. If this is the kind of balanced comentary that PBS is now giving I will send my support else where. I don't mind comentary I think it should be balanced!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:06 PM 		Tamara : I've been extremely pleased with your coverage of the conventions. So glad that Mr. Lehrer is here to bring a cogent sense of reason compared to the other stations covering political news. I can hear myself think with the balanced coverage. One complaint I do have: I wish Gwen Ifil had not been so polite when she was insulted for asking what everyone wants to know about Palin's mothering responsibilities vs. VP responsibilities. Shouldn't a working mom (who chews gum, people!) who is still procreating wait a little longer to run for this position? Thanks very much.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:06 PM 		Anita : GREAT COVERAGE FOR TWO WEEKS! I watched every night of both coventions and was especially pleased that you presented a variety of outlooks. The three panelists who offered a historic viewpoint, Judy Woodruff, and Brooks and Shields all contributed in a different and equally valuable way. And Jim Lehrer, who I was pleased to see back for what must have been a grueling schedule, was terrific. Thank you for the balanced, thorough and intelligent coverage.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:06 PM 		M.A.R. : I appreciated the PBS coverage which was excellent. Nonetheless, I was troubled by the segments in which Gwen Ifil interviewed panels of speakers. During coverage of the Democratic convention, the panelists were all Democrats. For the Republic convention, the panelists were all Republican. Those portions seemed uncharacteristically lopsided to me, even though PBS treated both parties the same way. On tonight's show (Friday night), the newspaper editors (the representatives from Florida, Missouri, and California) were a waste of time. There should have been more international news instead.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:05 PM 		Connie : Thank you, thank you so much for being there. I thought your coverage was excellent of both the Democratic and Republican conventions. I especially appreciate the reporting of Judy Woodruff, Gwen Ifill, Margaret Warner and the always stimulating comments from Shields and Brooks. I will continue contributing to my local CPT station, so don't ever go away.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:04 PM 		Bain : Enjoyed the News Hour during the two conventions for both narration and commentary. Probably the most attention was given to two candidates (Obama and Palin) who are from border States, which means that they could have insights into two of America's greatest needs: water and oil and gas (since their neighbour has quite a bit of both). As we know (sadly) from experience, however, all politics in America are local - only in America could two weeks of politics unfold without a mention of that apparently empty space between Alaska and the 49th parallel.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:04 PM 		Diana : This time, I watched the Democratic convention exclusively via PBS. I found the newscasters and commentators to be thoughtful, fair and insightful. I really appreciated listening to Brooks and Shields.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:04 PM 		L. Frederick Polakoff : Mark Shields and David Brooks offer the viewer intelligent penetrating views of not only the Democratic and Republican conventions but the candidates and their ideas. They compare current issues to past political agendas. Jim Lehrer's questions bring into focus what is relevant. The News Hour is greatly enhanced by the presence of Shields and Brooks. There weekly commentary is a highlight of the News Hour.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:03 PM 		Raghav Sharma : As an independent voter, I was glued to the conventions and found the coverage provided to be very thorough and balanced. Sure there were logistical glitches every now and then but overall it was a wonderful job. I also applaud the analysts - all of them - for being as balanced as possible. In some cases, one started where other left off. It gave me a sense that I was getting the real truth instead of left or right "spin". In the end, that's what most of us want - give us the details and the facts and let us make up our own minds instead of using catchy gimmicks, sensationalizing the news, and turning the news into an opinion show. Great job!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:02 PM 		MaryF : Confessing to be a political junkie, I can't tell you enough how much I appreciated PBS's coverage of both conventions. Brooks and Shields commentary was thoughtful, and one actually thought that they had listened to the speaker. And, they listened to each other before responding. They were not self aborbed or hollaring. The historians were amazing and Jim Lehrer did his customary excellent job of leading. Thank you!! I makes me proud to be an oh so long member of our pbs station in No MN.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:02 PM 		Antoinette : I watched all coverage, both conventions. Shields and Brooks provided outstanding contributions. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:01 PM 		bobby : I wish you would ask all the rabid conservatives you have on your program why they consider PBS "liberal media" and are trying to cut its funding.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:01 PM 		Shell Rowe : I am wondering why the RAlp NAder is not not being discussed. A recent CNN poll lidsted him at 6 percent. That's without virtually any media coverage and unaccess to debates. Why are only the democrat and Republican parties covered? The news cannot be unbiased if a candidate that is polling at 6% while being blocked out by the media!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:00 PM 		Susan Best : Thank you for your graceful, intelligent, and civil discourse. Thanks also for the lack of commercials and the complete coverage of all the speeches. Wish all the networks had the same high standards.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:00 PM 		Concerned : Take away the POW story and the Obama bashing, and all you got left from both McCain and Palin is another four years of the same.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
08:00 PM 		cari : I thought the coverage was great and although I am kind of a news junkie, I had other things to do and could not watch it all. What I saw was very good. I especially liked Judy Woodruff's interviews with delegates from the floor. That was a great touch. As always I appreciate the analysis of Mark and David and I thought the historians added a very cool perspective this turning out to be such an historic year. I don't watch too much TV so don't have cable but enjoyed being able to watch what I could and was pleasantly surprised by Caroline and Uncle Teddy though I am not a Kennedy fan. Thank you for all of your hard work and time traveling to Denver and Mpls!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:59 PM 		Barry Margolis : No two ways about it; PBS had BY FAR the most complete and balanced coverage of BOTH conventions, regardless of what some of knuckleheads above say. Being a Democrat, I watched the complete PBS coverage, switching only to C-Span for some bits that occured during Jim's chats between the more major events. I was not as interested in the Republican coverage, but the PBS gang again did a swell job. I fully expect PBS will win some awards for the depth, balance and intelligent coverage of both conventions!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:56 PM 		TexCal : I'm very disappointed in the coverage. Like the rest of the mainstream media, your on air representatives have become nothing more than an echo chamber for both of the campaigns' surrogates and their partisan rhetoric. No tough questions to the surrogates and no follow up on statements that misrepresent the positions or records of their opponents. It's a shame that your standards have fallen. Also I wish to support the comment from James E Johnson on 9/5 at 7:02 p.m. Please do not have supposed pollster Linda Duvall back on your show. Her constant repeating of the McCain campaign's talking points makes her appear less than credible and extremely unprofessional.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:55 PM 		Concerned : My husband and I decided to watch PBS's coverage of the DNC and RNC because we believed that it would be fair. However after hearing the analysis of Sarah Palin's and John McCain's speeches, I am shocked. On Charlie Rose Wednesday night, it was a Palin lovefest complete with Orrin Hatch's "basically feminine" comment about Sarah Palin that got a rousing response and laugh from all the males. I felt as if I was in a locker room! The following evening I saw Gwen Ifil sit through an interview with Linda Lingle, a Romney advisor, and some other Republican pundit all of whom repeated the same Republican lines about Palin. Not once did Ifil challenge these three Republicans on the vetting process of Palin and how she cut funding for children in her home state, her acceptance of earmarks and her comments about Hillary Clinton's "whining" about sexism. On Thursday after John McCain's speech, I felt as if everyone on the panel heard a totally different speech. It was a poorly written, poorly delivered speech that lack substance, meaning, and most of all confidence. Mark Sheilds was the only analyst who I felt had the courage and professionalism to do his job. He called Sarah Palin's speech exactly what it was: belittling and John McCain's speech all over the place. If all it takes to hold the two highest offices in America is a good biography and a couple of smug, sarcastic zingers, it's a sad day for America. The fact that the majority of the analysts on PBS believe that leaves me to wonder, where will I get my news.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:54 PM 		Melanie : Thank you so much for your complete coverage of both the DNC and RNC during this critical time in our nation's life. Jim Lehrer, as always, invites the most interesting commentaries from the featured political analysts, and all of them shared their insights and observations in measured and rational terms. Our democracy is encouraged and strengthened by our commitment to discourse free of rancour and enriched by fearless observation. The fact that PBS is the only current television outlet for this manner of examination makes me want to increase my donations. I will be doing so soon. Thank you for your continuing commitment to calm and insightful political commentary and news coverage.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:51 PM 		Floridafemale : Thank you for the coverage which is better than most. I do not have cable so this is the most complete coverage I can see. However, PLEASE try to make sure you have more objective commentators. David Brooks is so biased it is ridiculous and the editor from Tampa was embarrassingly biased and inarticulate. Can't you find anyone better than that? And if you are going to bring in 3 Republicans just make sure they are balanced by three Demoocrats and perhaps some Independents as well.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:38 PM 		Desdichado : The coverage of both convetions was excellent and enlightened
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:35 PM 		john barry : Your coverage of BOTH conventions was excellent and Shields and Brookes are the best on any American TV channel. I wish they could be on every night, But sadly they re only on Friday nights. The three of them Jim L with Shields and Brookes are the best On any US TV program Keep it up very interesting programs. thank you John Barry Niagara Falls Ontario Canada
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:34 PM 		Matthew : I wish you would stop putting this woman Rosemary Godreaux on the air. Her unabashed partisanship is unappreciated, by myself at least, and her analysis is remarkably obtuse.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:32 PM 		m. e. sutherland : I watch the News Hour every night. My favorite analysts are Shields and Brooks. I wish they were on oftener than once a week. It was great to watch the Democratic convention and hear the two analysts and Jim Lehrer.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:28 PM 		Linda : I've had trouble receiving The News Hour broadcasts because of technical difficulties and had to watch other networks to get national news for a few days. What a difference! What I appreciate about PBS is civil discourse and unbiased reporting. Great job, Jim, Gwen, Margaret, Judy, Ray, Jeffrey, and Shields & Brooks!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:27 PM 		Merrily67 : I am never again following any political campaign for all this long, am just sick of it. I don't care if Jesus runs for president and picks an alien as VP. I will again watch the News Hour LONG after all this is past. Wait wait, Jesus probably WAS an alien! You know all those tricky JC things he did, he shape shifted with the best! Over and out!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:23 PM 		rorovitz : Abysmal, that's how I describe your coverage... I watched many hours of both conventions on the networks and (mostly) PBS, but saw & heard nothing about the massive protests and police violations of the Bill of Rights. If not for youtube and -get this- Inside Edition I would know nothing about the protests! What does it say about you that we're getting better coverage from tabloid TV? You are not journalists, you are the Ministry of "Information". Now here's a real journalist being felled by a jack-booted thug... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d9wmqO2Khw I dare you to air this on the News Hour!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:20 PM 		Lara : Am I missing something? Why aren't you covering what is happening to the journalists trying to cover the RNC? How about standing up for an independent press?
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:20 PM 		Debbie & Nancy : We think that your coverage overall of the RNC was excellent and you gave excellent opportunity to hear the speeches a couple of times which gives more people a chance to see the coverage. A+ My only objection is interviewing fellow reports and pollsters for basically an hour listing to their theories about what we think which is basically like listening to celebrities. Why not actually open it up to direct feedback to the public. I see two ways of doing this one by having phoning in so that it can be more interactive with the comments put forth by your reporters. The second way would be to have PBS do a poll of its own online. A simple yes or no answer to series of questions that you asked of various reporters, which are then numerically tabulated output direct from the database unanalyzed by reporters. Thanks for doing a great job
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:19 PM 		Carole Merritt : Thanks for the News Hour's commentary. However, it was difficult for a 77 year old female to listen to candidate McCain's hunger for praise for serving in Vietnam, when all of the millions of us with several family members serving in World War 11 wouldn't have dreamed of such a thing. He has no integrity, is a poor choice with his health history and age factor. World War 11 vets never mentioned their service and bravery. My first husband received medals for serving in 7 theaters in Europe, and I found out last month, when going through his belongings in the attic. The first time I knew this. He died at 38yrs. Also the retirement facility we are entering, has lots of people that are concerned about getting in and selling their homes. Also, where are we to put our money that will grow interest and is safe? How about our pensions and healthcare? Will we have enough to see us out of here? I didn't hear McCain address these important issues. Also, if anyone remembers anything about World War 11, why don' they understand that Russia is not a country one can gerk around and place a missle receptor 115 miles from their border. We need a kinder, gentler, approach, with a man with vision like Obama, who can form a concensus with leaders all over the world. Bush has been hungry for war since 9-11. We need to change this environment.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:19 PM 		Steve greant : I watched the entirety of the PBS coverage of both conventions and thought it was excellent, particularly the interchanges among Jim, Mark and David and the "historical perspectives". I also tuned in the cable coverage (MSNBC, Fox and CNN afer PBS signed off, but could not watch it for more than a few minutes. Nothing makes one appreciate the civility of Public Radio faster than a minute with the cable networks. KEEP UP THE EXCELLENT WORK.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:18 PM 		Kathryn T : Excellent coverage, but it's getting rather tiresome seeing all the media in all forms running from any confrontation with the Republicans when they call "foul" about their reporting. What is the purpose of journalism? Are reporters not supposed to ask the hard questions on behalf of us all? Seek the truth--even when it is hard to accept? When will journalists be demanding to see Sarah Palin on the news shows doing something other than reading pre-prepared speeches? What about a question about how you cut taxes in Alaska when there are no state or sales taxes? What about the importance of community service? How would the Republicans have acted if the Democrats had shown 9/11 video at their convention? And finally, instead of allowing candidates to just volley the "experience ball" back and forth, how about asking about the *quality* of one's experience; the soundness of one's judgment; the types of decisions that are made? Quantity of experience does not necessarily make for quality of experience and faith in the judgment behind it. It's like saying that a book is good because it has a lot of pages! I'd like to see some hard-hitting reporting about the elections.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:13 PM 		Susan : Your coverage is the most sophisticated, enlightened and unbiased when compared to all the other networks. Actually there is no comparison. I make this comment based upon all my years of comparing you to the other networks but especially these last few months where I was truely disgusted with those stuffed shirt so-called "journalists" on other networks that do nothing to inform, only insult us, especially women, with their biased male-oriented spin. Thank you for being so unbiased and professional. Love you all-from Jim to David Brooks and Mark Shields, Gwen Ifill and Judy Woodruff. I will continue to watch you, first and foremost, for your great interviews and the intelligent analysis of the facts by all, but especially Brooks and Shields. Thank you!!!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:06 PM 		Andrew : Your convention coverage (both Dems and Republicans) was tops! The discussions with Brooks/Shields, as well as the historians, were fascinating. This easily trumps the normal networks' sound bite offering!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:05 PM 		Flora Shedd : We only watch national news on TV during the Newshour. Both my husband and I were so pleased to watch the focused and fair reporting of all our favorite reporters during the conventions, but had an added bonus of listening to the always interesting commentary of Shields and Brooks. Excellent.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:04 PM 		D. Bradley : I watched more of the Democratic convention than I planned too, because of PBS' coverage, especially Brooks and Shields' analysis. I am so tired of the Republicans' attitude of pushing fear and of McCain's "maverick" attitude. We've had eight years of a "maverick" who also shoots from the hip. Enough!
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:02 PM 		James E Johnson : Dear News Hour, Please never have Linda Duvall on you program again. She comes on in the costume of a pollster but is really just a campaigner for the McCain ticket. She is shameless. Thank you, James E. Johnson
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
07:00 PM 		Sara Williams : You taqlk about Palin with a straight face. The suburb of Wallisa had to hire an Administrator when she was Mayor, she want creationism taught in schools , she thinks humans have had no role in global warming, she is under investigation for trying to fire govt. adminstrators for her own personal reasons, she could be President in Jan. of 2009 becuase McCain is old, was one of the Keating Five, has a history of cancer, has suffered trama from being a prisoner of war, was faithless to a crippled wife. You have an ad that says News Hour tells the truth. David Brooks especially should be more resposible. I am terrorized by the faqct that Sarah could b e President let alone the confessor McCain.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
04:10 PM 		C. Smith : Thank you so much for PBS Newshour, and Jim Lehrer. The Convention Coverage was just great.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
02:50 PM 		jl : Shame on you, PBS!! The RNC and cronies were inside the Xcel center, and outside were the rest of us. the public. who there was heard? Seen? Analysed? PBS reaction to the charges of media bias from the right is showing adherence to blackouts,dismissal of dissent as dangerous, violent,and no refutation of clear lies, mistruths, silences. Protect the press, as you have said,from intimidation and attack. Did you cover this reality? Public broadcasting, remember. What happened in St.Paul with you? You think this is an avoidable minority that should not be allowed to instigate rebellion. Think again.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
10:23 AM 		pacifist gunslinger : Great coverage, though one wonders how Judy Woodruff could confuse McCain's tepid speech with a "great" speech.
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
02:56 AM 		saida : I have appreciated your coverage of both conventions, and found the presidential historians' comments quite helpful. As Jim Lehrer has said, this is an extremely important election. I believe the mainstream media has undermined our political process by refusing to report many portions of critical news. I worry that the powers that run our country are intimidating the media. As a consequence, we have a woefully ill infirmed electorate. This week, in St. Paul, police have been intimidating and arresting journalists and their cameramen as they cover the primarily peaceful anti-war protests. No major media outlet has covered this story. I wish the News Hour would do so. Thank you
Posted:
09/ 5/08 at
01:12 AM 		Jacy : Gwen Ifill is almost as untalented as the new politically-correct faux historian that seems to memorize and recite his answers to questions he hopes he can predict. Notably, even if the question Jim Lehrer asks, Mr. PC Faux Historian will continue with his memorized historical script, wholly disregarding the question. What ever happened to the better days of Shields & Gigot? Brooks is a wimp and can't take a stand on any idea until the mainstream press decides for him. Jim Lehrer- you are spot on. Margaret Warner is the sharpest woman in journalism today. So kudos for their good work.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
09:56 PM 		Chris Reid : I feel that the commentators at tonight's RNC (9/4/08) missed a core truth regarding how Democrats view the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not that Democrats are skittish about the use of force. Rather, they are skeptical of it. They believe that because the unjustified use of force will call forth additional resistance from those who resent being bullied and steamrolled, it must be used only when it is truly justified. In the case of Afghanistan, the pursuit of Al Qaeda justifies the use of force. In the case of Iraq, however, the perceived threat is one of our own making. It is an unjustified war, one in which we, and the coalition forces (a coalition of four -- what a joke!) should never have become engaged. I daresay many feel they were duped by the Bush administration into supporting the invasion of Iraq. (The same is not true of Desert Storm, which enjoyed much more universally acknowledged justification.) It might be said, too, that the Vietnam War had many opponents domestically who perceived it as unjustified. So the crop of veterans emerging from the "unjustified" Vietnam and Iraq wars are more likely than veterans from WWII to be supportive of candidates who view the use of force more skeptically. Republicans, on the other hand, are much more likely to see these wars as being a battle of good against evil, and are therefore more inclined to see these wars as justified. Democrats are much less comfortable painting the world in such black and white terms, believing it to be composed of many colors and shades of gray, thus preferring diplomacy to the use of force. I hope I have made myself clear enough that you will be able to convey these thoughts to your viewers as well. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
09:54 PM 		la Serenissima : In theory I like the idea of extended coverage of both conventions on broadcast TV is a good thing, however, I would like a little less 'punditry' - it gets to be a bit much after a time. The Democratic convention had some really good speeches during the week from Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden. Ending with the wonderful celebration and Barack Obama's speech (in front of a diverse audience of 84,000) at Mile High Stadium. This despite the dire predictions of pundits who said that the Democratic Party wouldn't unite and that Sen. Clinton's supported would walk. The Republican Convention, by contrast, seems tired (or maybe it's just been tiring)- the speakers have been trotting out the same old line of hatred of anything or anyone that is different, culminating in last night's vitriolic diatribe from their VP nominee in front of the least diverse audience I have seen in the U.S. in decades. Of course the bar had been set so low even the mainstream press has been falling all over themselves, ecstatic that she can read a prepared speech from a teleprompter. That was enough! After Gov. Palin's speech, empty of everything but sarcasm, I couldn't go through another evening of the RNC. Besides, Sen. McCain hasn't offered any new ideas since his campaign began, so why would we expect him to tonight?
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
09:00 PM 		joe malone : PPS is the best, but I wish that your analysis could include fact checking and bring in Frontline producers. We might get the real story instead of what the co-opted Brooks and the timid Shields have to offer. At least Charlie Rose tries to get under the skin of the Big Story. Using the CFR for Foreign Policy analysis or some politician is little better than Giving the Mike away. The GOP shouldd have been analysed by their peers Bob Barr and Ron Paul and the Dems by Mike Gravel and Nader. that would have been outside the Box. Jim,Gwen, Ray, Jeff Kwame, and the Rest are top Notch though. But the US is in such a mess because of Bush/Cheney we need serious srutiny not this Beauty Contest. Anyway, As a progressive/conservative and small R republican you folks are the Best and my wife and I love you. Please Keep your eye on Iran as I am afraid, very afraid.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
07:49 PM 		Marie : It is so refreshing to see how happy and exiting Jim and Judy are. I felt so sorry for you last week at the other party's convention, you surely were not exited to be there. By the way why all the analysts this time are all Republican, while last week they were not all Dems.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
07:01 PM 		Fran and David Hoffman : The coverage has been outstanding. Thank you! We do not have cable or satellite TV (and don't think we really need it anyway)and watched PBS exclusively for both conventions. I looked forward every day to the evening program. I especially enjoyed the conversations among Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields and David Brooks. And I learned a lot from the excellent historians. Your coverage was respectful and unbiased. PBS is a national treasure.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
06:52 PM 		johnny b. goode : I would welcome conversation about the political campaigns that didn't make me feel as if I am auditing a telecourse on How to Consult on National Political Campaigns. For example, I read an AP article that fact-checked Mrs. Palin's speech, and left it feeling informed enough to make a decision. So many of the questions I hear amount to the perennial practice of asking crime victims how they "feel" about their loss of money or possession or loved one. That doesn't inform me. Second, and equally important, does anyone keep an ongoing table of the constant speculations made to see how useful those expert comments are? Many of them I hear from my friends or hold myself, but we aren't paid for how we feel, intuit, guess or say those things which most salvage a justification for our presence. Thanks for listening.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
03:47 PM 		uclacathleen : Again, I thank God for PBS and shows such as the NewsHour, Bill Moyers' Journal, NOW, FrontLine, Charlie Rose, et al.! I do believe that the negative comments regarding the journalists, such as Gwen Ifil, being biased are outrageous! Reporters are doing there best to present the "information" (sometimes disguised as blatant lies by the interviewee) for viewers to draw their own conclusions. They are not interviewing political leaders or foreign dignitaries, but delegates. Even though I completely disagree with the Republicans and therefore their delegates, these delegates have the right to state their opinions, just as Democratic delegates did last week! The time for tough questioning will come in the weeks ahead, and I am confident the NewsHour staff will objectively do their job! I respect Lehrer, Ifil, Woodruff, Suarez, and all the other reporters who contribute to the excellent reporting of the NewsHour. I have been watching this program for about 18 months every single night, and am so very greatful for literally stumbling on to it. I learn much each evening from the objective reporting, enabling me to reach my own conclusions on the issues! This program has even given me leads for research projects as I continue earning my Ph.D. in public health! The NewsHour far outshines any other domestic news program, and it is the only domestic news program that I rely on for fair, accurate, and thourough reporting!! I have stopped watching local news, except for the weather, and given up on cable shows and the "big three" nightly national newsbroadcasts! The only other news source I turn to and trust is BBC News with an occassional DW-TV (i.e. German) news program! This combination gives me the best overall and well-rounded national and world coverage! Other Americans should give all a shot! There is a world outside the U.S.'s borders, which the U.S. not only impacts, but which also impacts the U.S. I challenge all to broaden their horizons as it will yield a more informed and educated citizenary! The commentators, such as Shields, Brooks,Norton Smith, Beschloss, and Joseph, are just that commentators! They are allowed to present opinions. Even though I do not always agree with Brooks, I do appreciate hearing his perspective! I can make my own judgment on any commentator's remarks, taking what I want and leaving the rest! However, I must strongly object to what appear to be very subjective remarks about Peniel Joseph. I have enjoyed listening to him throughout both conventions! Perhaps, individuals should check themselves to identify the true source of their biased comments! For the record, I am a white, 53 y/o female currently living in the deep south for the last eight years. During that time, I have become sensitized to all the code euphemesims which may actually be referring to race. As the commentators say, I don't know if that is what is behind the comments about Joseph, but it does deserve exploration. I look forward to seeing Joseph as an ongoing historical commentator as is appropriate based on the news story! After listening to the blatant lies in the speeches of Romney, Huckabee, Guliani, and Palin last night, I could not sleep! I tossed and turned all night despairing over the contempt and outright disrespect for the first mixed race or African American presidential candidate with an excellent opportunity to win the office of the president of the U.S.!! These were not attacks on Obama's policies, they were personal, below-the-belt attacks on an impressive candidate with a powerful history and well-vetted record! Guliani openly and frequently laughing - laughing at Obama's personal story and service to this country! Huckabee appeared to give a compliment to Obama's achievement, and them immediately referring to Obama as a "symbol"! Then what drug was the many faced Romney on? How can he sanely refer to the Roberts' Supreme Court as liberal?!?!?!? The Court was doing their job ~ upholding the Constitution! Since when is that liberal or conservative????!!!!! I have decided to turn off all the lies and focus my efforts on electing my candidate! I will watch the NewsHour tonight and McCain's speech, but not all the BS and blatant lies inbetween! My sanity and health cannot take it! I will continue to watch the NewsHour, but will purposefully avoid the other garbage! I will not read blogs, comments or any other BS! One final note ... Please give appropriate coverage to the illegal arrests of Amy Goodman and other journalists as well as the protests they were/are covering! That story deserves fair, objective reporting! It's a travesty of our Constitution and Bill of Rights!!! Again, to all involved in the daily production of the NewsHour, I give you my many, many thanks! Keep up the good work!
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
02:26 PM 		Andrew E. Sledd, Sr. : Do your "journalists" covering events inside the GOP circus care about the journalists on the streets outside who are facing police state tactics? Or is prolonged discussion of clueless Sarah Palin and her pregnant teenager more important than occasionally mentioning rape of the First Amendment? I am so angry I could spit. And The News Hour ought to be ashamed.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
01:17 PM 		Edna : I would like to ditto Cassandra's post on 09/03. When will there be tv coverage of the police action before and during the RNC convention? These events are strikingly similar to what happened in Beijing before and during the olympics. What's going on???? Why the blackout???
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
01:17 PM 		bfee : top shelf coverage...always get a tempered perspective from PBS...informed, typically un-opinionated, with a considerable breadth. a comment about Gov. Palin if i may, we are ready for a chief executive or vice-executive who is a female, but this is not that woman. i speak as a republican of many years...our country, for a whole lot of reasons, needs a more thoughtful president, not a "Barracuda" or pit-bull w/lipstick....the world has changed significantly...McCain, unfortunately, has not, and he has selected someone who is a bit out of touch with the global pulse. we cannot continue to try to re-shape the world in our im-perfect image....we need to take a good long look at ourselves. and change things here.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:47 PM 		OLD GUY : Can i dare to believe that this one may be about facts and the problems we face? Will the voters realize that Palin is John Mc Cains' Hail Mary Pass? Still waiting after seventy plus years.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:46 PM 		Ilya : I appreciate your approach to convention coverage even though I only watched selected segments. (I'm not much of a TV viewer). I also appreciate the intelligence and professionalism of your reporters and substitute anchors. I was dismayed at the inclusion of Peniel Joseph who does not offer much insight. If you are going to include a black commentator I think you should have also found a female one. And I think it is time to retire Mark Shields. But in general, thank you.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:31 PM 		Barbara Starke : I have not heard one comment on the demographics of the Republican convention. This seemed to be a strikingly white gathering. I did not see a realistic representation of America. I think this is important for all Americans to take notice. Also, how are we to respond to this party that put George Bush into power and kept him there for eight years, who supported his policies, which many of us feel have been destructive to this country that we love. Unreal on my part to expect, but I hear no accountability nor any substantive explanation of why we should vote for them now.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
11:37 AM 		Ed : Apparently someone was escorted out of the convention during the Wednesday night speeches. There were two quick shots of the person being hustled up the stairs by about what looked like 8 security people. No mention was made by any of the commentators. So what happened?
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
10:02 AM 		Craig Redder : I liked the mixed "filler" format. Some of the observations are worthwhile, and they did serve to bridge the time between major speakers. I do wonder about the furor over the private family unwed teenage pregnancy apparently none of the public's business. But it is perfectly acceptable for the candidate to use the choice to serve in the military, leaving for Iraq on 9/11 no less, for political ends. The press seems to me to be the target of coordinated republican wrath when the candidate (Palin, in this case) would rather not discuss an uncomfortable matter.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
02:02 AM 		catnip : My source of choice under most circumstances for news is the News Hour in particular and PBS in general. For the most part, I think you do a great job, certainly far more thorough than the networks, and we have another household without cable our satellite, and very unlikely to acquire such in any foreseeable future, as I am not about to spend $80 to $100 a month to bring more drek, er, excuse me, TV into my house! If "a la Carte" cable is ever offered, where I can get all of the news, politics and science channels, without the sports,movies and other drivel, then I might consider it, but I will not buy their packages! Now, back to you folks: I do have a few relatively minor to medium - sized complaints; with regard to the conventions, Brooks wears his partisanship way too far out on his sleeve. I was very careful to watch for it, because I wanted to be fair, and not judge too harshly, but he had something negative to say about absolutely every speech made by a Democrat during their convention, and so far, has just absolutely mollycoddled the Republicans - to say that Palin was in any way of "Good Cheer" or nice to or about Obama was just silly! I don't think this woman is very well educated, although her grammar and usage are better than most network reporters'- well I did catch her the other day in the now apparently ubiquitously Republican pronunciation of the word nuclear as "nucular" a la G.W. Bush and his administration. In any case, these details are important, and your "pundit", in this case, Mr. Brooks, is either a neutral journalist, or a partisan commentator, but he cannot be, nor should he be be presented as, both. Oh, and I totally disagree with the couple who don't like the coverage, as a certified political junkie, and a reformed and former (41 years) Republican, now a Democrat for Obama, I LOVE it! Thank You!
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:57 AM 		Susan Di Biase : I am extremely grateful to the News Hour for providing excellent coverage of so many of the addresses of both conventions. I also appreciate the expert commentary and historical perspective. I believe we are receiving a more thorough, fair and balanced perspective than that available on the commercial channels. However, tonight's speeches by Giuliani, Thompson, and Palin were full of not just partisanship, but lies and misinformation. I have spent many hours following this year's election and I know these are lies. What about the average viewer who only has time to tune in for the conventions? We were told the speakers had "excellent delivery," "exceeded expectations," and "appealed to [some segment of] voters." How helpful is this? Isn't there supposed to be a referee to say when people are not telling the truth? It is not partisan to respect the facts of the situation. The sacred duty of the Media and their trust with the American people is to help us discover the reality behind the rhetoric. Don't let us down!! Full Disclosure: I believe in the scientific method and I believe global warming is real.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:45 AM 		One Vote : I watched PBS' coverage of the DNC last week and am following the RNC this week. Thank goodness some network deems the process of selecting the President of the United States important enough to broadcast. Such coverage, by the sheer weight of its importance (not its excitement), ought to be carried by every single network; that is if we, as a nation, truly place value on the importance of an informed electorate to the success of our democratic form of government. Although I am glad you are there, I wish that your commentary in general did not lean so much to the left. What I would like to see in news reportage is the following: coverage of an event; an explanation as to who was involved; what occurred; where it took place; why it happened; and how it was pulled off. Then let me formulate for myself my opinion. If I'm old enough to vote, I ought to be old enough to process the events reported in an unbiased news story and form my own opinion. Who knows, I might come up with something different from what you would have me believe. Nevertheless, thank you for your service.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:34 AM 		japh : Four hours for four nights is a bit much. I'd rather see the standard News Hour for the first hour, if that's logisitcally possible. I don't think you need the entire staff at the convention, particularly the roving reporters interviewing delegates whose comments are predictable. Love the extended time with Shields and Brooks and other commenttors and the two pollsters.
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:08 AM 		JC : Tonight is the first night that the News Hour Cast (Jim Lehrer, et.al.) really showed themselves to be not too much different from mainstream media. I was disgusted by your "historians" nastiness toward the Republican convention vis-a-vis the Obama convention. Even Jim Lehrer was having a hard time not displaying dismay all over his fac
Posted:
09/ 4/08 at
12:03 AM 		Dolcezza : Gwen Ifill looked, once again, like she was going to be physically ill if she had to state one positive fact about the McCain/Palin ticket. Gwen needs to realize that we don't watch PBS to get the same in-the-tank perspective ubiquitous on other news programs. Gwen needs to learn a bit about professionalism in journalism.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
11:56 PM 		BRUNO WOLF : The coverage is great because it gives me a better source of information than the major networks dispense. As a fence sitter I can now decide on which side to lean, The next 60 days will finalize my decision. I do know that Palin and the Alaska legislature have a pitful record when it come to conservation and wildlife preservation. She supports aerial wolf hunting by big money trophy hunters. She may have bucked the good ol' politicos in her state but she has no problem pandering to the money men. By her speech tonight I could hear how much she supports the same big oil moguls and the same highrollers that have been screwing us over for the past 8 years. Sounds like the same ol' same ol' to me. Obama put on quite a show too. Is there a third canidate?
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
11:27 PM 		Astronav : It now becomes clear that the conventions are infomercials, there certainly isn't any news unless you count managed emotional drama. The delegates are effectively a captive cheering section that is heroically trying to swallow what the presumptive's organizers have been feeding them Neither party has addressed anything of substance but continues to feed us a patched together morality play which goes to nothing of consequence but attempts to create a veneer of character. And you folks get to be the faithful talk show hosts desperately trying to produce content out of soap opera. The real questions are in the minds of us voters, many who have come to realize that the party they grew up with has left them, and is no longer relevant to the realities of today's world anyway. We have a job ahead of us. I hope that PBS will get enough traction in those realities to be of use to us by asking the questions of not only presidential, but other gubernatorial and congressional candidates as well that will tell the voters when they need to know. I make bold to off the following "starter" questions. Questions for the presidential candidates and their surrogates. (A work in Process) Will the candidate, if elected: Revise the current operation of the Executive Branch and it's agencies so that they comply with the Constitution? Over the last several administrations, Presidents have issued executive orders, edicts and findings that violate the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people and infringe on the authority of Congress which is to say the people. Will the candidate voluntarily repeal and/or cancel these policies as appropriate. In addition will he make it clear that he will expect The Congress to do its duty and represent the interests of the people in their constituencies and to set and fund the policies for the executive branch to carry out? Will he discontinue the policy of “signing statements” (which have no weight under the Constitution, in fact it represents defacement of an official document)? How can we expect the people to respect the law if the president doesn’t? Will he acknowledge the president is responsible to the American people though their elected representatives. Will his administration be transparent and will he cooperate with the legitimate requests of the Congress. Executive privilege is not defined or given any status in the Constitution. Freedom, Privacy and personal security: Will he again give the Bill of rights the respect it deserves? Government now intrudes routinely into the private lives of its citizens without due process or probable cause. In the meantime, the digital world has now enabled a whole new class of criminals and vandals who also invade privacy and steal identities. The U.S. government has shown no interest in the pursuit of these criminals or in the development of effective means for the individual to protect his private information. Rather, it seems more interested in facilitating its own surveillance of the people. From a vibrant free, energetic, creative people we have devolved to a society of proletarians that has forgotten the value of our independence and the ability to engage in lawful pursuits without government direction and interference. Our government was not designed to “rule” the people. It is intended to serve the people and protect their freedoms and prerogatives, not to be a “hall monitor” or “warden.” Unfortunately, our leadership class knows that only if they keep us in fear of an “evil” enemy can they maintain their dictatorial prerogatives. A position in government is no longer an opportunity to serve with integrity; it is now seen as a position of power that puts the person above the law. Will he direct application the of U.S. law equally to all people on American soil, or under American Control. During hostilities, to either classify captured enemy as “prisoners of war” or “war criminals.” Then treat them as their classification justifies. Will he allow the "excuse," "It's classified" to prevent people accused of crimes from being denied access to exculpatory evidence? Further it is against statue to use security classification to cover incompetence, illegal or criminal actions. Justice Anthony Kennedy on 12 June 2008 in writing the majority opinion in the recent decision regarding Guantanamo detainees, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” The Economy: Will he, within his Constitutional authority, and in cooperation with The Congress identify and address the key factors that have reduced us to a nation of indebted consumers who no longer produce enough product or services of value to our trading partners to avoid building the trillions of dollars of personal, national and foreign debt? Will he then use leadership that to educate and encourage Americans to reverse that trend and again become free from debt and self-sufficient as a country. Will he, in cooperation with Congress, study the international competitive environment for corporate entities with regard to taxation and regulation and begin a process to reverse the exodus to offshore destinations of our corporations and the damage that the expatriation of these entities produces to employment and the economic base of the country. Also to make it advantageous for corporations to pay their fair share instead of the millions they spend to avoid any taxes. Further, will he start a program of reducing and eliminating subsidies of all kinds to all industries. Will he advocate that our youth be educated in how an economy works and enterprises succeed? Will he direct the financial regulatory functions (most of which are the purview of the Executive Branch) to become depoliticized? Will he submit budgets to allow them to do their job competently and effectively and without prejudice? Will he support them when they try rein in aberrations such as sub-prime loans that become politically popular even though they clearly will lead to a disaster and the diminution of the country’s wealth and the weakening of its position in the economic world. Will he discourage the manipulation of the value of our currency and the inflationary policies of the Fed, SEC, and other regulatory agencies? Will he address the pending insolvency of the Social Security and other entitlement programs? Will he make sure that especially those programs which the citizen has contributed significantly will not be diminished? Energy: Will he direct the Department of Energy to conduct a continuing survey of the country’s energy demands? List how they being met now and the alternatives for us to become self sufficient in the near future. This information needs to be shared with the energy industry and the people. This should be only a sharing of the current energy reality. It should not include subsidies or incentives except perhaps on the consumer side, but definitely not the production side. Subsidies, especially of experimental (alternative) technologies can create a distorted interest on the part of the government. Development should be by private money. Their reward is their profit from the publics acceptance to the products. Will he direct the DOE to study successful alternative energy production in other countries, for example: nuclear power in France and ethanol from sugar cane in Brazil? Foreign Policy, War and Terror: Will he develop a foreign policy that respects the concerns, history, and culture of the citizens of other countries? Will he learn how to export our quality of life? Will his foreign policy reflect the better and more generous characteristics of Americans and avoid attempts to dominate or exploit other countries, their people and resources. When force must be employed it signifies the failure of foreign policies. Will he refuse to pick preemptive fights with other nations or start wars to settle personal scores? Will he, barring an actual invasion of the U.S. in force by a foreign power, promise not to engage in any police action or war unless war is declared by the Congress. No longer define actions by or against non-state terrorists as a war. Obtain Congressional approval before any retaliatory strikes against state sponsored terrorism. Immigration and the War on Drugs. Will he faithfully enforce the current laws of immigration? He has the option to ask The Congress for changes to be made, but it is unethical to ignore them and illegal for the president to violate existing law. Will he differentiate between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants/workers? There is a major difference. Illegals are illegal. Period. They are entitled to due process but if found to be illegal they should be expeditiously deported. Compassion does not trump the law or justice. Will he use foreign policy to convince the “powers that be” in Mexico and other Central American Countries to improve the lot of the common people so they will not be driven to break the laws of the U.S.? Is there anything a president can due to convince people to stop the self-destructive activities of illegal drug use and thereby end the war on drugs and the cross border smuggling? Would he support legalization of certain drugs that have medicinal or recreational use (as is alcohol and tobacco)? Does he actually think that any physical or technological barrier will stop illegal entry from entering the U.S. or bringing drugs into the U.S.? to satisfy the market demands of unethical businessmen or illegal drug users. Will he allow the "excuse," "It's classified" to prevent people accused of crimes from being denied access to exculpatory evidence? Further it is against statue to use security classification to cover incompetence, illegal or criminal actions. Justice Anthony Kennedy on 12 June 2008 in writing the majority opinion in the recent decision regarding Guantanamo detainees, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.” What role does he see for the federal government in education? What will be expected of the Department of Education? What is it we are not getting across to our young people about making a living by making a valuable contribution to society and the economy.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
10:54 PM 		uclacathleen : Thank goodness for your coverage of both conventions! I don't have cable, and would have not wanted to listen to all the babble over speeches, if I did! I watch the NewsHour every night. I know you try your hardest not to show preference, but I do have a couple of concerns. I am distressed that there has been no coverage of the treatment of Amy Goodman's and her colleagues' illegal arrests! I am also hoping that the obvious falsehoods being spun by the Republicans tonight, such as being the party of smaller government, would be challenged and set right by the facts by someone on the show! Right now I am listening to Rudy Guliani and cannot believe he has so little respect for Senator Obama that he is openly laughing at Obama's background! Obama has not stepped this low! Huckabee equating Obama's candidancy as "symbolic" is denigrating to all Americans, especially those of mixed race! It's one thing to attack policies, but it's another to attack and destroy a presidential candidate on such a personal level! The Republicans got us into this false war by deliberately lying to the public! Check out PBS's FrontLine documentary, "Bush's War". This administration chose to not go after the real culprit of 9/11, Osama bin Laden. Instead he is still in a cave somewhere in the "wild" area of Pakistan! Republicans think they not only own, but also decide who is patriotic and if an individual's service "really counts"! I do not question Palin's ability to be a mother and have a career. I cannot judge what is best for her family. Finally, for the record, I am not for the feeding freezny regarding Palin's pregnant teenage daughter. It's not right despite whatever irony I may find in the situation! I do not support Palin because I disagree with every one of her social conservative beliefs. Please inform the voters that Palin campaigned for the bridge to nowhere, accepted, spent, and did not send the money back to Washington as she is now stating(right this very moment)! She is lying! Remember, Obama and Biden came out forcefully and immediately in favor of a hands off position regarding candidates' families, including Bristol Palin! As a mother of a member of the armed forces deployed in a war, Sarah and her family have my prayers and gratitude. God knows I would be out of my mind if my only son and child were serving in harms way!!! However, that no more makes her qualified to be commander-in-chief than does Alaska's close proximity to Russia! Also, please re-inform the public about Senator McCain's back peddling on torture! I always admired him for his stance against torure, and was completely dismayed when he changed his mind! McCain knows better than anyone, as he signed what the N. Vietnamese wanted, that torture does not work! Be very clear, I do not fault or blame McCain in any way for these actions! He just wanted the beatings to stop! I still admire McCain for his honorable service, but I completely disagree with all his policies, especially as they evolved into total support of Bush's policies during the primaries! Finally, finally, the three want-a-be's (i.e. Romney, Huckabee, and Guliani) sunk to the lowest of lows with their below the belt attacks on Obama! There is obviously nothing but contempt and a total lack of respect for Obama and Biden by the Republicans attending and speaking at this convention! I can only hope and pray that enough citizens recognize these disgusting tactics, and vote for all Americans, not just Republicans!
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
09:55 PM 		SB : Pretty lame. If the mainstream media wants to know why they are losing viewers and readers, it is because hundreds of thousands of us are watching live on the web while commercials and PSA's are running on PBS. We just want all the facts, all the coverage, without the "experts", and we will make up our own minds. Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
09:08 PM 		ChristinaK : What about the environment. Gas prices went up and we don't care about Global Warming? Ms. Palin doesn't believe humans cause Global Warming; she is against the endagered species act. Her evangelical viewpoint separates her from much of the electorate. I don't hear these question being raised. I am a democrat and I feel that Ms. Palin holds too narrow a point of view.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
08:35 PM 		Cassandra, who utters the unspeakable : Fine and good - the New Hour is offering its usual "alternative" to network and cable news. But where is the coverage of what the police are doing outside the RNC? Would it have been ignored in Chicago in 1968 outside the DNC? oops! It WASN'T ignored. I remember Chicago '68, even though I was a mere politically-interested teenager, and the front-page, top-of-the-hour coverage given to protests that turned violent when police arrested demonstrators. Do you? As a member of the press myself, I am shocked that the mainstream media -- and especially the News Hour -- is not covering the treatment of fellow reporters and camerapersons, not to mention peaceful demonstrators who are within bounds and within their constitutional rights. People are being harmed and then denied medical treatment by police; police are seen on video smiling smugly as they arrest Amy Goodman for covering the convention; a bus which demonstrates COMPOSTING and other low-energy-consumption means of living has been seized along with violent treatment of its occupants. It is not an overreaction when I call this by its name, a name we would apply to such treatment by police or military in any other country in the world: Fascism. It is YOUR DUTY to report it to the American public. When will you break what appears to be a conspiracy of silence?
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
07:21 PM 		Priscilla Kauffman : Would your photographers at the convention please get far enough away from Judy and Gwen to avoid that disturbing parallax which is so unbecoming. The ear phones are bad enough!
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
06:55 PM 		Angela : Thank you for your excellent coverage (commentators)of the DNC. It amazes me that your organization can offer such great coverage and without commercials! Keep up the great work!
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
05:47 PM 		Kelli : What a disappointment. For years I have relied on the News Hour for even-handed coverage in an industry where bias is the norm but last night when Gwen asked her two female interviewees whether Palin was qualified to lead as a woman with five children I hit a new low. Never have I heard ANY female politician asked such a demeaning and assumptive question let alone a male politician. That Gwen would be asking it now is a tell-tale sign that your professionalism is slipping. And where was the coverage of Thompson's speech or Leiberman's? Furthermore, where are the give-and-take responses I am so used to enjoying? Last night was comment after comment from a critical left with little opportunity for rebuttal except from Brooks. What has happened? I quit listening to other McNews groups years ago because of their shallow and editorialized styles but found in depth maturity (read: both views represented) in your coverage. Now I am realizing there may be no such thing left in this industry. What a shame.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
12:19 PM 		Jean : Regarding the debates:Please just be fair.Don't give McCain an unfair advantage like Saddleback Church did allowing him to hear the questions beforehand & then not holding him accountable for it!(I'm not so sure Brokaw won't slip him the questions,tho'.)Thank you.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
09:41 AM 		Alison : Please cover the political issues and desist from these continual questions and comments about Suzanne Palin's teenage daughter. As a lifelong Democrat I was disheartened during last night's coverage by the questions and suggestions regarding Suzanne Palin's ability to be Vice President as sge is also a mother of 5 with one pregnant teenage daughter. Leave it alone or else begiin asking male candidates who are fathers if they believe they are fit to run the country and neglect their parental duties. Unfair, uncalled for, and completely unnecessary. Please be the first to jump off of that bandwagon.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
09:10 AM 		Wendy Clarke : I would like to see more coverage on Service. Is it charity, tax write off or federal aide (23 foster children).
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
08:47 AM 		Cynthia : I agree with several comments - more coverage needs to happen about the arrests at the RNC. What happened to Amy Goodman and others is absolutely appalling. Do I really live in a country that allows this? Evidently, yes.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
07:12 AM 		Concerned American : You did not provide complete coverage of Republican Nat'l Convention 9-2-08. You terminated in the middle of Joe Liebermans oratory. Shame on you.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
02:13 AM 		RussBBinVegas@aol.com : What's wrong with The News Hour! It is inexcusable that your PBS coverage of the RNC mirrored the blandness & utterly un-newsworthy proceedings, while completely ignoring the unConstitutional police crackdown on anti-war & anti-BushCheneyMccain protestors outside the convention hall.
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
12:38 AM 		Athena : Jim Lehrer disgraced his own News Hour Tuesday night by permitting (with analysts Shields & Brooks)the comparison of Palin's PR problems with those of Quayle (poor spelling, no mission)& Eagleton (mental health issues). Apples & oranges! The proper comparison would have been with Al Gore's teenage son, causing a "scandal" during his father's campaign. Sarah Palin & Al Gore each have a MISSION--should they just drop it because their teenage brats get in quite ordinary trouble? Or, should Al Gore continue his mission and Palin drop hers? Are you biased? In case you don't know, Palin's mission is to rejuvenate our economy by persuading us to become an important oil producer. She is better qualified than anyone else to dispel the romance of the caribou and polar bears in Alaska--whose mythic qualities are embraced by legislators from New Jersey to Nevada, to the detriment of our gas and food prices, not to mention our national security (we are too dependent on King Abdullah, Putin, Iran and Venezuela). Sarah Palin's political mission is as worthy as Al Gore's, despite their miscreant teenage children. Another great unfairness of yours is to repeatedly mention Bush's ratings without reference to Congress's unpopularity. We Americans don't like our government lately--why not say so? And analyze the reasons. When the PBS banner containing the word "Independent" rolls by, should it have a parenthesis below saying "except for the News Hour"?
Posted:
09/ 3/08 at
12:04 AM 		Anne : To Ken - Didn't you know that David Brooks is a conservative and probably a Republican? I'm an Obama Democrat and I used to dislike David. Now, I think due to his observations of the Bush debacle, he's mellowing, maybe a bit shook up, and I find him more thoughtful. Also, concerning the abortion issue and Obama saying the moment when life begins in the womb is "beyond his pay grade," THAT'S because religious and scientific experts have argued for centuries as to when viable human life actually happens! WHEN do the cells actually become "human"? No one really knows! And that's all Obama was saying.
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
11:45 PM 		Anne : I watched the entire Democratic convention and tonight I watched the real beginning of the Republican convention, and I am so impressed by the news team of Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields, and David Brooks, along with the reporters on the floor. I support Obama, but will watch the Republican convention, too. I think David Brooks has gone thru a sea change during the Bush years. He is MUCH more centrist now in his opinions, fairer, I think. I don't have cable, but from what I've read and heard, PBS/NPR delivers terrific, unadulterated news, and I support PBS from my heart - and from my wallet. Keep up the good work - you are TERRIFIC!
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
11:44 PM 		Ken : It would be an example of more professional journalism, if your network could actually recount the Republican convention, without using it for a forum to manipulate people with your own personal political views. You could at least have a Republican present to make an intelligent debate before sharing such obviously biased views.
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
11:34 PM 		Mrs. D. Vallo : We watch pbs for political coverage. I found your DNC coverage & views to be respectful, albeit biased exuberation. Tonight, I was very disappointed to see the unprofessional bias that spoke over Gary Sinese during the tribute to the brave soldier who gave his life to save his comrades. I really wanted the same respect given to the RNC. Unfortunately, we do not have cable. I hoped the moderators could have shown unjudgemental attitudes, but maybe tomorrow will be a less bitter report. Thank you for carrying coverage for the public to see though~ I notice our local 3, 5, 8 & ch.19, chose not to air it, unlike the DNC convention. Hopefully optimistic anyway...
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
11:12 PM 		American : The PBS news team is extremely flat covering the republican convention. When it came to the DNC coverage, the commentary was full of flair and excitement. And Jim Leher was at the convention. During the RNC, they are not there and they are disconnected in their commentary. It is obvious the PBS team is in support of the democrats. As a supporter of PBS I am disappointed in the poor coverage of the RNC.
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
11:08 PM 		American : This is in response to Jane DR. Jane- you are talking about womens rights. Many people believe in childrens rights. The law is written as your rights end where another persons begins. An unborn child has rights. A right to life.
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
08:35 PM 		Jane DR : How come none of your reporters/interviewers mention the fact that abortion should be just as private a matter as the Palin daughter's pregnancy? Yet Governor Palin wants to outlaw abortion. Should every woman have to do what Palin wants?? Let's give all American women the right to make this decision with as much privacy as the Palin family expects.
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
08:07 PM 		Will : Gwen Ifill's interview of the Republican legislative women during tonight's Newshour was especially weak. She let them get away with spouting party line talking points, with no real discussion. Your crew should be insisting that the delegates discuss issues to get air time.
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
06:54 PM 		Leslie : I wholeheartedly second Nancy Brandenberg's comments. For two days now I have been hearing on Democracy Now! about the arrests and abusive treatment of press, including learning today that Amy Goodman herself was swept up in the fracas. Why was nothing said about this on your program? I fully expect Bill Moyers to take up the topic; will NH dare to give full coverage of what is happening in our country?
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
06:08 PM 		Nancy Brandenburg : I have trusted the integrity of your news presentations in the past and am shocked to see that you are not covering the protest outside the Republican convention floor in St Paul. Americans deserve to know that journalist are being jailed in America for doing their job. Why has there been no news coverage for this shocking event? Though clearly identified as press, Amy Goodman from Democracy Now, two of the producers, and an AP photographer were jailed and charged with obstruction of a legal process and interference with a "peace officer". The producers were arrested for"suspicion of felony riot". The story has been virtually ignored by mainstream press. Please investigate this disturbing breach of democracy and reveal who, or what organization is behind this news blackout. The public has a right to know what power is capable of obstructing justice and flaunting its ability to get away with it.
Posted:
09/ 2/08 at
03:17 PM 		Lance Dugger : Gentelmen, your coverage too often displays the not so thinly veiled views and prejudices of the pundit being queried, and in this election both opinions seem to come from the same perspective-the anti-black, anyone but Barack one.
Posted:
09/ 1/08 at
10:41 PM 		Mary Gendernalik-Cooper : Crack reporting tonight for sure. Mrs. McCain was identified as the first lady at least three times tonight; Senator McCain was annointed president at least once; Senator Obama's audience from last week was counted as 40000 rather than 40million; no mention that today was a national holiday--Labor Day; and then there was the private plane ride for Louisiana delegate's family, sugar daddy McCain took care of that with gushing reporters there to pick up the humanitarian theme; the pandering to the corporate sponsors is getting more blattant every day. Good bye news hour.
Posted:
09/ 1/08 at
09:04 PM 		Diane Linscott : PEW, indeed. I felt the rehashing of the Bush administration's failures during Katrina by Andrew Kohut,Judy W. and a representative from the Democratic whatever was totally uncalled for at this time. It, after all, was supposed to be the Republican candidates "day in the sun" and, rightfully so, they were attending to the potential disaster, Gustav[as David Brooks called it -"a no-brainer"]..Why not have a discussion about that? No. The pussy old pundits were robbed of their chance to bash Bush...so they just had to get it in. So much of the devastation of Katrina was the fault of their ill-equipped - on all counts - mayor...and the Governor at the time...All seemed to have acted responsibly this time...why not focus on that during that segment with Judy W. instead of Katrina and the Bush administration failings? And suggesting that there was relief that the hurricane was a blessing in that President Bush and VP Cheney didn't appear. Disgusting. That's a conjecture that should not have been aired by responsible journalists. I don't know if it was a local condition, but the sound was out of sync...throughout the NewsHour.
Posted:
09/ 1/08 at
07:33 PM 		Jo Manette Nousak : I'm listening to the Republican convention coverage right not, Monday, 9.1.8. Please inform Gwen Ifill that there is only ONE first lady of the United States at a time, no matter Ms. Ifill's wish; she has just called Cindy McCain the first lady -- or future first lady -- twice in a 5-minute report. Ms. McCain is NOT the first lady of anything. Again and again and again and for too many years now, we must suffer Gwen Ifill . . . I look forward to hearing the OTHER members of the PBS Convention-coverage family this week, as I enjoyed hearing them last week. And I thank Mr. Lehrer et al (excepting Ms. Ifill) for their good and hard work. Sincerely, J Nousak
Posted:
08/31/08 at
06:18 PM 		laVozdelaRevolucion : Hi, I thought your coverage was okay, but your pundits are all politically conservative. You never hear from the progressives. I'm disappointed that you did not air Dennis Kucinich's speech at the convention. You excluded him throughout the primary season. You did not cover his work on impeachment or include him in your debates. Please include more progressive voices on your program. Thanks to the Oregon Channel (OPB) for providing extensive coverage of the convention.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
03:38 PM 		Rob : Thank you PBS! A view from the "real side", and not the garbage you get from the networks. I ALWAYS watch PBS for the true insight. I love Jim Lehrer and his perspective, a true American and solid journalist. Shields and Brooks also give both sides(views).The rest of the crew also provide good solid reporting. Way to go PBS, I continue to support and will always watch your reports and coverage vs. turning to the networks. Thank you.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
03:26 PM 		Sheila P. Woods : I enjoyed your coverage of the democratic convention. You did not cover the protests by the veterans against the Iraq war outside of the convention, why? Some deeper evidently "hotter" issues are not getting coverage except by alternative media or Bill Moyers. Overall since the Bush years I have seen a backing off by PBS about corporate America's control of our air waves, who and how corporate controls the vote, demise of democracy, militarization of the country for oil, cost in lives of americans and Iraq civilians, displaced Iraqis, americans being able to be easily manipulated through fear tactics and false information from various sources. Need to speak up for truth in journalism by calling out the names of the major air wave distorters and subverters.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
02:29 PM 		Lillian : I thought the coverage of the Democratic convention was interesting and even-handed. I live on the West Coast and my only "complaint" was that I would have liked to have seen the major speeches live on PBS or at least not as late as they were shown in my time zone. I can see that it would have "wrecked" your evening presentation which was very good and informative. Watching the speeches on network broadcasts was more timely but then I missed the PBS commentary. Whether I agree or not with all the comments, they cause me to pause and consider the speeches from a variety of angles/interpretations.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
02:26 PM 		Clara Moseley : I say thank God for PBS, especially at convention times. I would have missed so much if I had stuck with the regular networks. Being from Virginia, I really wanted to hear Mark Warner and Tim Kaine but would have missed both without PBS. I'll be here this week for the Republican convention as well.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
01:59 PM 		Julie Reisner : I very much appreciated the extensive coverage you gave the many speakers. However the denial of what was clearly a transformational experience (Shields/Brooks, general commentary) within the Democratic Party and out in the grassroots, is enough to make me quit PBS, except for the debates, until after the election. We have had eight years of Bush-washing, and don't you think we Americans, and the world, deserve better than that? I was gratified by the wrap-up given by Judy Woodruff, who got it so wrong during the primary season. And the historians were more even handed. Does anyone in broadcasting in this country really get it that we are a bankrupt nation? morally, spiritually, economically, intellectually, environmentally? Rove/Bush/Cheney have successfully numbed the public and enslaved the middle class. Barack Obama, his campaign, and Joe Biden are breathing new life into our minds, hearts and senses. They are moving this country and our political system into the 21st century by utilizing technology and the wisdom of the grassroots and of those very experienced people from all persuasions and professions who have joined his campaign. I would hope for more accuracy in your future coverage. We have a planet to save, along with civilization and culture as we know it, witness the current environmental stories, need I say more.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
01:23 PM 		Jesus Lover : After all the talk of lobbying and corporate manipulation. How is it our congress still has these types of people around them, Corporations haven't taking over our country it's been given too them. No politician can give us as a country. That which hasn't been approved be big industry. So to the masses of people who truly believe that an new election will change anything. I prey for thy, I morn thy. Open thine I America this is the business of our world.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
12:52 PM 		Constance Chambers : PBS offers the best and the only coverage of the convention that is worth watching.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
12:50 PM 		Constance Chambers : It's such a relief to be able to get evening coverage of the conventions free of ideological commentary by the paid political consultants. Where would I be without the News Hour Team and its genial and intelligent probing of the politicians? The answer: sifting through newspapers and their thin coverage -- not watching another channel!
Posted:
08/31/08 at
12:50 PM 		Constance Chambers : It's such a relief to be able to get evening coverage of the conventions free of ideological commentary by the paid political consultants. Where would I be without the News Hour Team and its genial and intelligent probing of the politicians? The answer: sifting through newspapers and their thin coverage -- not watching another channel!
Posted:
08/31/08 at
12:10 PM 		Bill : Thank you for the ONLY clear actual "fair & balanced" coverage. I flipped to "Fox" occasionally, and was amazed at their sparse and somewhat sarcastic commentary. I'll bet the Republican convention won't be sparsely covered by them!
Posted:
08/31/08 at
10:40 AM 		M TURNER : I would like to express my appreciation for your wonderful coverage of the Democratic National convention. It once again proves without a doubt PBS is hands down the best.I have always turned to PBS for all of the revelant news when ABC,CBS and CBS have been less honest with their views. Why would you give the American people more covereage of the Olympics than American National Political System.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
08:06 AM 		Bobo : I speak from a third of a century's experience in the news media: Yours was the usual even-handed, intelligent coverage I've come to expect from people who have their egoes reined in to the point they can offer intelligent, mature appraisal. Your professional historians are especially appreciated, although Ray Suarez (who honored my alma mater as graduation speaker a couple years back) has earned my respect for his ability to a put a probing, unloaded question.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
08:00 AM 		M McL : As has been expressed so many times already, THANK YOU!!! The coverage was well balanced, something I have come to expect from the News Hour; and the continued participation of both Mark Shields and David Brooks added tremendously to that balance. Initially, I had planned to watch only the major speeches, believing -- as one reporter stated -- that the convention coverage was simply "the longest single infomercial available" to each of the political parties. I quickly tired of the talking heads on the cable channels who appeared to receive more air time than the convention speakers. So I tuned in to one of the local PBS stations. Your coverage gave me a reason to watch all of the broadcasts for the next three nights. Thank you! You certainly lived up to the stated PBS goal of providing information to enable people to make more informed decisions. I look forward to your coverage of the Republican convention. Thank you.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
02:19 AM 		Connie : I absolutely love your coverage of the party conventions. I record them and go back over them, much as rereading a good book. Please know that some of us regular citizens find this much more compelling than American Idol, etc. Please continue.
Posted:
08/31/08 at
01:14 AM 		Jeff : I just want to express my appreciation for the quality of the coverage - its depth, breadth, and thoughfulness.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
11:59 PM 		Bill : I have no comment because I couldn't receive any of your signals with my digital tuner. I sent you an email about this 3 days ago and have still not received a reply.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
11:37 PM 		Rem : Enjoyed the coverage very much including the interviews. Speaking of which, I noticed that Jimmy Carter appeared to have something wrong with his left eye during his interview. Is he OK?
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:00 PM 		Russell : I think the convention was great.Obamas speach ansered all questions.the coverage was ok,would like more coverage less talking heads,some of the talking heads were not watching the same convention I was.thay seamed to be blowing a lot of smoke.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
09:11 PM 		Dorothy Brennan : Obama when you want a preacher you go to churchnot to the White House. He exudes a self image that he cant be critized. Cant spell it narcalixism.Ifnyou watch live interviews he hesitates as he speaks as if be careful dont blow it. Very noticeable with Tom Brokaw. He frightens me because his backers are lobbists and he denies it. Fake///Those promises need money and there is none in the cofers.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
08:19 PM 		Becky Milner : Your coverage of the Democratic Convention was excellent. I checked other channels briefly to be sure that I was choosing correctly and was amazed at the difference between your helpful commentaries and their intrusive talkers. You provided coverage and context interspersed with interesting interviews. Watching was better than being there. Thank you.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
08:07 PM 		Bernadine Kline : I found out that on Thursday evening, not everyone got to see the "average Americans" who spoke before Senator Obama's speech...I will never forget the wonderful Barney Smith who put into perspective that Democrats will support people like him (us) instead of Smith-Barney! All those who spoke from their hearts...each and every one of their stories were poignant! Thank you for realizing that they were an important part of the Democratic National Convention...something that all the other coverage ignored!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
07:54 PM 		Deborah : It was superb. I so appreciate the historical perspectives as well as the analysis of Shields & Brooks. I just went in and renewed my membership!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
07:28 PM 		Nelson Dean : I was out of town, several weeks ago, when your annual support show was broadcast. I heard from others that you had a DVD of Andre Rieu. You had a nice concert on your station. Could you send me a list of the selection he played Also the cost or how do I get a DVD of it. I have quite a few, but going on 85, his music, and your station are a great comfort to me. Didn't know where to send my request. Thanks so much, Nelson L. Dean NLDean1924@aol.com
Posted:
08/30/08 at
07:24 PM 		Bette Semple : My heart sank when I realized that PBS would be the only option for complete coverage of the Democratic Convention for me. Whereas the Newshour group has high standards and successfully maintains them, I shudder to think of the power given to David Brooks in such grand moments of history to influence millions with his shallow, negative, egotistical responses and serious lack of aplomb. On day one, he had to give credit to Michelle Obama, and he couldn't deny the power of Ted Kennedy. The next day, he referred to it all as "banal". He seems to be able to see the gracious professionalism of others, as in the Clintons, but is unable, (nor is he required?), to address the pettiness and small colunist mentality which characterizes so many of his responses. While admitting that Obama had to deliver a non-Obama style speech of details and platform policy, he criticizes him for giving a run of the mill political speech. He then arrogantly states, "B plus, A minus". If it was B plus, A minus in fact, it deserved a well considered critique of integrity and application, not his habitual failing to meet the measure of the moment by another lapse into personal arrogance. I don't like the man! And I think he belies everything I've understood PBS to stand for: a commitment to strive to understand and to care about the larger view, in this case global, beyond his newsroom buddy protection system. The stakes are too high, and just as he did four years ago in the election coverage, he let us all down. He was given the opportunity for the last word on the convention, and fortunately, Jim Lehrer immediately sought another more responsible view in the remaining seconds. Why don't you find someone who can be a real credit to your news effort? David Brooks lacks both humanity and accountability.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
07:00 PM 		ajbaudio : The NewsHour is the last bastion of anchored journalism on broadcast television (C-SPAN being only bastion of unanchored journalism). You guys delivered on the context which Jim called for himself just last Saturday. Everyone else put on an entertainment show; the NewsHour put on a true news program. The additional online presence...especially the Twitter posts...provided a dimension that could not be found anywhere. Unlike many bloggers, whose journalistic credentials are questionable at best, the Tweets demonstrated that quality news can be delivered on these new platforms with their own contextual demands, yet with the gravitas and experience that only the NewsHour can provide. Absolutely unbelievable! Even the humor came across without giving any sense of bias towards any particular candidate or party. One caveat: your major Chicago affiliate, WTTW, has deemed their local programming more important than the NewsHour's content. It's a shame that every night, we in Chicago never heard Shields and Brooks do the final breakdown of that night's feature speaker...including Mr. Obama himself. Not your fault by any means, but very disappointing on theirs. Keep up the great work! We'll watch you...both over-the-air and online at Twitter...all next week!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
06:38 PM 		Nathan : Honestly, I thought the coverage was racist. All of the old white guys complained about Obama in ways that were not even factual. "His speech didn't make sense." It was a really racist display, that you in no way intended, but I was appalled.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
06:22 PM 		Barry Sharpe : I really enjoyed your coverage of the DNC and watched literally every minute. I don't have cable so your views and news were greatly appreciated. I love Mark Shields and David Brooks as well as Gwen Ifill and the whole crew. Keep up the great work and thanks again.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
06:03 PM 		Groucho : So....you're only posting remarks supportive of pbs?
Posted:
08/30/08 at
05:53 PM 		Nancy Reinecke : The PBS coverage of the Democratic convention was superb! Thank you for giving us more time than the networks allowed and for the excellent commentary. My husband and I watched the entire coverage every night, and every night we were grateful to be spared the cable channels' frenzied reporting. Thanks for including Shields and Brooks and for the panel of historians. Absolutely superb!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
05:23 PM 		Barbara Zimmerman : Coverage of the Democratic convention was fantastic. I loved that the analysis was on directly after an appropriate speech or interview. The analysis was short...and became an integral part of my education. Shields and Brooks are the BEST!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
05:06 PM 		D. M. Robertson : Writing from Montreal Quebec, I want you to know that PBS rocks for bringing the Democratic Convention to the great number of North American viewers located in Canada, as well as cudos to come for reporting a broadcast of the Republican attempt to hold the White House. As a PBS viewer, I would like The Newshour Team to really take note of the ‘multitudes of others’ in North America who are ‘closely’ watching these current events unfolding in the US. Many Canadians, throughout the past eight years, have been severely perplexed by the apparent “refusal” of the greater part of the American population to ‘act/speak out against’ the Bush administration for what appear to be policies immoral and illegal; in fact seemingly wishing to put up with an awful situation by continuing to support them. A widely held belief by many Canadians is that Americans just don’t get. I refuse to submit to this entirely, simply because I know so many of you personally – but get this, even my US friends and relatives cannot explain this dilemma. They are at a loss to explain why the ‘crises’ is the way it is…..!!?? Surely a fair measure of the population is speaking out – but perhaps they are not getting any real coverage in the ‘media’; although Bill Moyers is doing his very best to bring truth to broadcasting. I think this condition, this seeming lack of willingness to act as observed by many Canadians, speaks to our interest in the current events – the political conventions and the election itself. I believe we’re hungry for an answer north of the border – clearly the conventions to date do portray, for the most part, a great willingness by some Americans to speak to the truth. Indeed, if we are to believe the joy and hope and promise expressed by conventioneers we all might see the re-emergence of a truly ‘wonderful’ America. I just hope this is not just another example of ‘lip service’, and that Americans will truly respond in numbers, regardless the outcome, and make the changes necessary. Americans require this, and I for one want to think the US as a place I want to visit. No doubt as the election draws closer, US citizens living abroad will be brought into the dynamic, obviously showing the total effect of all ‘voting US citizens’. However, PBS will better service “all viewers” if we ‘foreign viewers’ are at least honourably mentioned, this I daresay might actually affect the process as to how better informed the American viewer may become. Seems to me you need to be reminded that “The PBS Neighbourhood” is truly ‘beyond borders. Regards, D. M. Robertson PS: For any ‘demographers’ paying attention: I’m 67, male, married, a parent, Canadian citizen, Scots born & an émigré to Canada in 1952, and previously a US resident (for a time.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
04:59 PM 		Hannah Friedman : To David Brookes: Will you please drop your mantra "we really do not know Barak Obama" What is it that you are really saying? We know that the canidate is brilliant, has sound judgement,is deeply concerned for the underpriviledged and the disinfranchised, has the wisdom to seek advice from those more experienced, and is clear on his platform of addressing the ills of our country. It seems to me that, if you really search your soul, you are really saying that you and this white Christian nation are not able to relate to the unfamiliarity of a black president. As a spokesman for another minority in this country, you should ask yourself "what difference does this make?" You are a commentator and analyist of great esteem. Should white Christian America think less of your judgement, experience and wisdom because it does not understand Judaism with all its unfamiliar tenants and beliefs? Would it make a difference if we knew whether you observe Shabbat, wear a tallis or yarmulkah, lay t'fillin or bow to the Torah? Again, I ask you what it is that you really want to know and whatever it is, should it make a difference and should you,especially as a member of another minority, be emphasizing this kind of disparity that you seem to think is so important?
Posted:
08/30/08 at
04:38 PM 		David Mihm : Great job, as expected, with COMPLETE and UNbiased coverage. I see a lot of negative comments about David Brooks and Mark Shields both (surprisingly) but if people want harsher more polarizing commentary they should watch MSNBC or Fox. And if they want egomaniacal buffoons they can turn to CNN when O'Reilly's show is over. The only commentator of the entire week whose insight I didn't appreciate was the guy from Pittsburgh on Friday night's wrap up. He seemed to be completely biased from the start and disinterested in what his fellow panelists seemed to think. I realize that it is depressing to be a conservative right now but try to be a little more enthused for a national TV appearance. Looking forward to watching the RNC this week as well.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
03:59 PM 		eliz in austin : I alternated between the Newshour and CSPAN during the convention. I didn't care for the large amount of Shields/Brooks analysis shown on PBS (although I did enjoy the humorous moments), but I liked hearing from the historians and the Obama journalists used on the last day of the convention. The Newshour showed far more of the convention than any of the networks or cable channels, that is for sure. CSPAN only beat you out because they showed every single minute of the convention (and no analysis, of course). I want to express my appreciation for the @newshour twitter updates from the convention!! They kept me posted on stuff I wasn't able to see on TV. While I may not pay as much attention to the RNC, I look forward to more tweets from St. Paul.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
03:52 PM 		Jean Latimer : I usually watch KNBC (cH.4) for big events, but I enjoy the 6:00 news hour and there was the Convention & John McCain's VP pik & I stayed with it and really enjoyed comments from regulars & guests reporters from nat'l. newspapers. I appreciated their down to earth views on Obama. I for one am tired of the Obama hype. Thanks for honest reporting.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
03:47 PM 		Tim Morgan : I can't get enough of the historians. The PBS coverage is the only opportunity to actually see the event, while getting reasoned insight and historical context. Thank you for your HD coverage, as well.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
03:36 PM 		Vivian Miller : Thanks for your complete and thoughtful coverage of the Democratic Convention. We watched our local PBS station exclusively.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
03:26 PM 		Dottie : Thank you for the complete coverage of the DNC. The cable stations were awful. I will be watching the RNC on PBS.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
02:47 PM 		Paula from Sapulpa : I do not have cable television, and am so glad I watched the coverage on PBS. David Brooks and Mark Shields are my favorite commentators because they are civil to one another, both highly intelligent, and their analysis is without posturing or egotism. I like the lack of interruptions, and enjoyed the DNC coverage greatly. I appreciate the fairness of PBS coverage, and I trust this coverage.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
02:34 PM 		Nancy Van Natta : We love the News Hour,tape it every day, and watch it most days. I am perplexed though with the very very careful commentary on Obama and the Dem Convention. Mark Shields is supposed to be the commentator for the progressives but he is so reticent to give Obama an enthusiastic thumbs up. If this country supports the Republicans after the mess they have made, I'm really afraid for our future. Mark Shields is supposed to be carrying our banner. Where's his outrage? Where's the support? I'm afraid I have to turn off the News Hour when I hear nothing but tepid analysis.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
02:20 PM 		Madam : Your coverage of the Democratic convention was the very best!! I started with CNN ( too many talking heads) and immediately switched back to you -The Networks came on so late they missed so much from the other speakers. We wanted to see the Whole party not just a synthesis!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:58 PM 		Groucho : Analysis of Obama's speech emphasizes style and offers cynical gripes, in the great tradition of contemporary news infotainment. Who is this clown from Pittsburgh, and I wonder if he dozed during Obama's actual speech. Brooks added some mild remarks on television, and then turned out the most shallow, mean column I think I've read in a year. Jonah Goldberg and Bill Oreilly regularly show more class. Why do we continue to accept these squalors? Obama was very specific, sober, and direct. If you want four more years of Bush, and like David Brooks believes that the party of Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, and Moloch is also the party of Teddy Roosevelt, fine. But I'd rather not hear this kind of absurd commentary, especially on The News Hour, a program I depend upon for solid journalism.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:49 PM 		dudley seeman : as usual, pbs can be credited with an objectibe and balanced approach to the dnc convention but in the discussion with my family afterwards i realized that an area for academic elucidation would be the electoral system, it's origin, evolution and arguments for and against change. the historians would seem to be the proper purveyors.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:42 PM 		Nancy : I do not have cable and so only the networks were available to me. Only PBS had the convention in it's entirety and I could listen to the whole speech. I enjoyed it and listened to every word. Thank you.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:14 PM 		Jack : I say, Wake up Jim Lehrer, Wake up Jim Lehrer, Wake up Jim Lehrer. Where the hell was your coverage of Dennis Kucinich? This was one of the most impassioned and powerful of ALL of the speeches given at the convention, and where were you? Talking to a trio of boring pundits about some relatively inane topic, that's where you were. Dennis, more than just about anyone, can strike right to the core of what is dysfunctional about the past eight years of our history, and you chose to censor him and edit him out. WHY? WHY? WHY? Dennis says Wake Up America! I say Wake Up PBS.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:33 PM 		Carolyn - Anchorage Alaska : Your coverage of the Democratic Convention was excellent. I watched every bit of it. You can't beat Shields and Brooks! They are great. The historians were great also - but where are the women?
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:03 PM 		Nan : As always, it's a pleasure to watch complete coverage without commercials, but if you truly want to offer balanced commentary, why aren't there any female historians on your panel? Please correct that egregious oversight, and then let us hear more from the scholar/historians and less from the political pundits.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
11:47 AM 		P&K : Thanks for the great coverage. It beat out all the others--but how could it not, with all your usual outstanding crew. Looking forward to next week--(but from a more cynical viewpoint!).
Posted:
08/30/08 at
11:39 AM 		Caten : I congratulate you on your coverage of the Democratic Convention. Thank you! Thank you!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
11:23 AM 		Janice : Most of the other news vocevergae was terrible all talking heads and very little time showing the convention itsleff. The News Hour team did a wonderful job at actually showing the convention speeches, while at the same time having thoughtful commnetary. I love your panel of historians and Shields and Brooks are alway excellent. Thank you, yours was by far the best coverage.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:42 AM 		David E. : I work in a remote part of Montana through the week, in the mountains close to the Canadian border. I had hoped that I could listen to the convention on the radio, but was disappointed that all I could get from U.S broadcasters was FOX news and talk. So as I tried to glean information from the American networks I found that I was listing to the “Down Right Mean Country Convention”! Not one U.S radio station I am able to receive offered any news in depth on the convention. Canadian radio offered the only substance on the convention. So I was very eager to get home and tune in to the news hour and hear what Brooks and Shield had to say. I think PBS and the News Hour is the last best place to get any news of substance. I would also give much credit to CSPAN. I don't get public radio where I have to work all week, at least on the U.S side of the border. The Canadians still do a very nice job on the news. Perhaps we should as a nation re-evaluate or media sources. I thank you all at the news hour for your professionalism and ethics in bringing all of U.S. (us) the news. I also catch up on the News Hour on your website, I like the transcripts of broadcasts
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:38 AM 		debi : best convention coverage ever!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:36 AM 		debi : best convention coverage ever!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:30 AM 		Bob from London, Canada : Bravo PBS. Best convention coverage I've ever seen. Well-balanced mix of fact, coverage from the floor, and knowledgeable, insightful commentary. Thank you.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:27 AM 		Cmarso : I believe that MSNBC & CNN announcers are nothing more than extensions of the democratic parties arm, I wish they could report on the event and not make us believe they are not bias to their personal choice. My goodness they talked about the DNC Convention as thought it was the next coming of Christ. I personally take offense that in America one needs to be a Democrat or a Republican. We should all be Americans, with no registration to just one party, so that we vote for the best choices. I can’t wait to see how MSNBC and CNN cover the RNC, I am sure they’ll be telling us like school children who to vote for, and why McCain is just four more years of Bush. Wait a minute they have different names, he has a female VP, yes wait a minute maybe they are different, and yes maybe they think different. Please, Please MSNBC & CNN let me decide; do not be bias just report the news. Thank God this is still my right!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:16 AM 		b. sharp : I am glad to know that you along with links tv that airs through direct tv a news channelthat relys soley on public donations and not corp. owners and therefore is committed to bringing forth real news from around the world to the american citizens. I for one applaud and thank each of you for understanding that we are not all a nation of moroons but thinking intelligent beings who are willing to listen compare awaken and make our decisions bsed upon the facts. I must say David and the lady from Tampa body language spoke volumes they didn't need to give an analysis I'm sure we all read between those lines! Thank you for your wonderful coverage.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
10:01 AM 		EPS : BRAVO! Of all the coverage on network and cable channels, PBS was the most balanced, informative and interesting. I wanted to see the activities and speakers at the convention, not just pundits and commentators, so I could make up my own mind. I purposely surfed a number of channels to get the perspective of each, and by far PBS provided the best coverage of the important speeches beyond the headliners, intelligent political commentary, and important historical perspective. I look forward to more of the same for the Republican event. Many thanks!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
09:44 AM 		Rachel Fitzgerald : I am vitally interested in both what is being said at the podium and in the processes of a convention making a critical choice. Without your coverage I could not know for myself what is going on and would be too dependent upon reporters and commentators. This was education and citizen information at its best and most responsible, for the most part it was reporting and not analyzing. Analysis and commentary was added for background and info. THANK YOU for not reducing the citizen info to the names of the nominee but giving a picture of process, personalities, spectacle and speech. Rachel Fitzgerald
Posted:
08/30/08 at
09:28 AM 		Phyllis J. Silva : Thank you for the excellent coverage of this year's truly historic Democratic National Convention. As someone who does not have cable or a satelite, I have long relied on PBS for election coverage. It is a pleasure to watch speeches that are carred live and completely, with expert commentary that is informative but not intrusive. (And no political pundits talking over speeches which is so annoying.) The coverage enabled me to see the major speeches of the convention, along with breaking news such as the roll call vote for Barack Obama. I was also very pleased by the coverage of some other outstanding speeches including those by Obama's sister, Maya, disenfranchised Republican leaders and other voters who were supporting Obama. Thanks to you I was also able to watch the speech of voter Barney Smith who had the funniest line of the convention. I'm so looking forward to your coverage of the Republicans and election day as well.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
09:01 AM 		marianne : The NewsHour convention coverage is excellent, superior to other networks and media outlets. Your in depth conversations and historical perspectives should be of interest to all, voters in particular!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
08:12 AM 		Joe and Kathy : Thank you for your incredible coverage of the DNC! Never before had my wife and I watched a complete convention and we were impressed by the in-depth analysis and commercial-free coverage. The News Hour team is unmatched!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
07:30 AM 		Larry Long : Great coverage of the DNC! How refreshing to see it all un-edited, without the talking heads and their spin. For those narrow minds who do not understand the historic significance of the event, please don't teach these old intolerant attitudes to your children. Let them learn to understand that even a Life-long Republican like myself can tear up when watching history. This also goes for those socialist Democrats whose children should watch and appreciate the second woman to aspire for one of the highest position in America. Only on C-Span will we get to experience the full scope of how our democracy is determined by "We the people" even if we don't agree totally with each other.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
07:22 AM 		JB : It is both fair and in the public interest to note, and to assess the fact, as Judy Woodruff did in this profile, that Sarah Palin has limited political experience. But to do so through the selection of three low-level and generally inarticulate interviewees rather than through a serious and fair (and dare I say balanced?) discussion among experienced people -- perhaps governors from both parties and/or other Western states, or perhaps the House and Senate leaders of the Alaskan legislature, which is actually split between the two parties (rather than a single first-term representative of the other party) is hardly up to the standards one expects of the Newshour. It was more like something you'd expect to see on the 4 p.m. local news in Quad Cities. The fact that it's a remote state and that you worked on short notice is no excuse for the low quality of that panel discussion. This was the producer's equivalent of damning with faint praise -- as if you set out to illustrate the small-minded and sexist first response of the Obama campaign to the Palin nomination. This was not journalism; it was, or at the very least appeared to be, an attempted character assassination that lacked even the courage of transparency. Ms. Woodruff, and whoever produced that piece and left her struggle through it on camera, should be ashamed.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
06:58 AM 		Mary Bee : Your coverage of the Dems was fine---looking forward to the Republican side of things. As the years go by, politicians have gotten more into the glamour abd glitz of entertainment of voters, grinning and bowing and scraping to play up to us. Poor Hiliary had to do a 180 to assure her own political future. Don't kid yourself--the Clintons are expert at "cover ups". It was an interesting display of showmanship. Discussions afterward are more informative than the actual convention. Thanks.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
06:42 AM 		Mary Frances : I loved your complete coverage. Glad I didn't have to mute any commercials. President Clinton mended the party breach and the individual citizens' comments gave convincing reasons for a new public policy. GPB included all the salient information. It's hard to believe the Republicans have a case to present. Thanks.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
06:41 AM 		Carol : PBS convention coverage was better by far than any of the major networks or cable stations. I flipped to the others briefly the first night, but for the balance of the week, when my schedule heated up, I set my TIVO to record PBS. I watched your excellent coverage on my time delay. I found myself not fast forwarding as much as I would normally (mostly skipping some less than stellar speeches). Your coverage was excellent: kudos to Shields-Brooks and the historians. Well done!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
06:06 AM 		John J. : I thought your coverage of the Democratic Convention was excellent. Too bad the women were basically relegated to floor duty and had no chance to comment from a female point of view. I also thought that your four journalists on Friday evening had nothing substantial to say, just cheap shots with no real substance. What a disappointment they were.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
05:05 AM 		ROZ GRALOW : Keep it up. Top coverage. I, like so many Australians, am very interested in this political run and I try to catch you to keep up with it all. Great programme, great coverages. Good luck with Obama for President.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
04:00 AM 		MWGWT : Yours is an excellent coverage to balance what is on our local news (Australia) and what I can draw from your interviewee's ... Adelaide, South Australia
Posted:
08/30/08 at
03:54 AM 		Leland : I was listening to your News Hour on Friday and was shocked to hear one of your commentators claim that Michelle Obama was sitting next to John Kerry's wife during the speach. I watched the speach and she was sitting next to Joe Biden's wife. Your commentator's comment went unchallenged. This is the kind of lack of concern for the facts that is shocking. You should do a better job of sticking to the facts on a "news" show. Such lack of factuality I expect from Rush, not from the News Hour. This error should be corrected on the air.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
03:31 AM 		gloria, Australia : I can't vote but I can have an opinion. The thought of another Bush in John McCann fills me with dread. I did fall between Osama and Clinton but now that the die is cast, I hope that Osama wins. We have had enough of George Bush, even here in Australia where we had the deputy sheriff John Howard taking us to an unpopular war and "crawling" to his friend George W. Enough! I hope that the Democrats get in and that they can do what they are promising even though that appears a very difficult task with the state of the USA these days. So far Australia is holding but the economy of the USA affects everybody and that's scary.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:54 AM 		maureen : Thanks Barbara, I found it on youtube! Thanks again PBS for great coverage.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:43 AM 		JanS : I felt the full coverage, plus comments, by the NewsHour was excellent - quite balanced and informative.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:43 AM 		Suzanne Ramos : THANK YOU for your coverage of the DNC. It was refreshing to see intelligent coverage. I am glad I wasn't dependent on the usual cable channels. Thank you to the NewsHour people, all of them but especially Mark Sheilds and David Brooks. I was also glad to see Charlie Rose's coverage!!!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
01:07 AM 		Barbara Dina : Maureen, The song you can't forget is "Democracy" by Leonard Cohen. It's on his 1992 CD...hmmm....can't remember the name of it now. You can find it on his website.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:59 AM 		Barbara Dina : I thought your coverage of the convention was thoughtful, comprehensive and balanced. I hadn't thought about the lack of world news coverage until I read another's comment here, but I feel that I satyed up on world events last week through other outlets. Thank you for showing us so much more of the speeches than the networks. I was so surprised that CNN didn't air Kerry's speech. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Barbarar Dina and George Schramm
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:38 AM 		jlb : i thought your election coverage and commentators were excellent. I do not have cable (on ethical grounds) but was very interested in following the Convention closely. Thank you for such comprehensive and thoughtful coverage, including the reflections of pundits, journalists and historians. It was very intelligently done and I appreciated being treated like an adult rather than watching some idea of the lowest common denominator.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:30 AM 		Scout72 : Democrats ROCKED THE HOUSE! PBS, thanks for showing America how cool we are! You really didn't have to do anything but show the DNC, but still, you did more then network tv did! Can't wait to use the Republican convention as a sleeping tool. Will watch it, but will never sway. McCain made a foolish choice today. Palin might be a contender someday, but she's not prepared. Aug 17 she said "no way, no how" she just wanted to concentrate on her children and her state/governorship, now she thinks she is ready 12 days later? She might be tough, but she can't lead. The world doesn't know or respect her. McCain is too old to make such a foolish and risky decision. If I were Republican, I would either NOT vote, or vote for a DIFFERENT party. We are not an island in this world. We must consider how the world will consider and respond to our leaders. She was foolish to accept the position. Shame on McCain!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:29 AM 		maureen : Thank you PBS for giving me a ringside seat at the Democratic Convention. One problem is that I cannot get the tune "Democracy is coming to the USA" out of my head ! I would love to know who this song is by. Hope some one reads this and can tell me.
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:22 AM 		Margery : Thanks for providing such full coverage of the Democratic convention. I was struck, however, by the lack of female voices in your coverage. There were a few women "on the floor," to get the emotional feedback; I guess that's what you consider proper women's work. But ALL of your historians and pundits were male, so the voice of analysis and reason was always a man's voice. How about that glass ceiling, guys?
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:20 AM 		junior : Wow...what a week! BEST CONVENTION EVER (I think)!!! I have never been much for politics. Voted in the last presidential election for Kerry, because Bush was already such a mess. However, had never really paid much attention. This year, I am excited! What a time to be alive! For the last 8 months or so, I have been reading EVERYTHING I can about Obama, McCain, Clinton, Romney, Paul, etc, and I realized that only one person really understands the mess Bush has made of this country at home and around the world. Obama has created a fire in my belly to change. To take my right to vote, responsibly. I will do whatever I can do to get Obama in office. (This coming from a guy who could barely make coffee). And now, seeing McCain's crazy selection for VP, I know I must do what I can to keep the Republicans out of office. The DNC convention on PBS charged me up! Brooks though sucks! What a dufus! He might have more education then me, but he still doesn't get the world! Thanks mom for telling me to watch PBS!
Posted:
08/30/08 at
12:04 AM 		andslat : THANK YOU PBS for giving us, the American public, a chance to learn more about one of our possible presidents. I am an independent, and even though I have liked Obama better then McCain in the past, I find that your coverage has entirely persuaded me to cast my vote for Obama in November. To have the opportunity to view the DNC and many of the speakers, I feel invogarated by Obama/Biden, and hope for a change. As I sat listening to David Brooks, I realized how cynical I use to sound when I voted and believed in the Republican agenda many years ago. He actually knocked the Obama campaign for having the DNC at MILE HIGH Stadium and packing it full of people...is he nuts?! Obama showed me that he is in this for ME...not for big money. By allowing (even attracting) 84000 people to be a part of his historical acceptance speech, showed what a remarkable man he is. You know, McCain calls himself a maverick, but he has a lot of money to be "gutsy" (although I haven't seem much to prove that). It takes more guts to follow the path Obama and his wife have. I am a former republican, turned independent, turned Obama-man! Thank you PBS! But in the future, tell David Brooks to turn off his cynical, non-sensical comments...it just makes him look like an idiot!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:44 PM 		Martha M. : Thank you for your excellent coverage of the Convention. I found the commentary by our old friends Mark and David, and the presidential scholars, interesting and informative. I also appreciated the interviews with the delegates on the floor. Your respect for your viewing audience is exemplary. I wish the same were true for the networks. I will always be a loyal supporter of PBS,
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:43 PM 		Gwen M : I was disappointed in the tape delay decision. I value the opinions and learn more from your commentators than from all the others combined! But it seemed very anticlimatic -- two hours after the fact and too late into the evening. Any chance you can switch back to live coverage?
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:29 PM 		John M : I watched all I could of the Democratic convention and really appreciated the time that PBS devoted to this event. While not a member of any political party, I am encouraged that for the first time in recent memory I can cast a vote for someone I admire rather than against someone I detest. I have to note the pathetic response of David Brooks (who must think we don't remember his laughable apologies for the current administration) who was so intent on saying something negative that he criticized Obama for filling a stadium with over 84 thousand people. Does he think those people didn't want to be there? Where would David prefer Barack give his acceptance speech? It appears more likely that simply he cannot accept the number of Americans who support Barack Obama. Poor David.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:26 PM 		bbriston : What more can I say that hasn't already been said (20 pages)? Your coverage was more than outstanding of the DNC. I enjoyed hearing from both Mark Shields and David Brooks. Their commentary is always thought-provoking. I watched nightly from 7:00-11:00 p.m. None of the networks can even compare to the coverage PBS gave the convention. Good job!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:16 PM 		Jim OB : I thought jim Lehrer and his gang did a msterful job of covering the convention. I'll return to see their terrific coverage of the Republicans. Thank you ALL for your efforts and considerable accomplishment
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:15 PM 		Jane Cartney : What do I think about your coverage of the convention? I think that anyone who didn't watch the Lehrer Report really missed the boat. I've spoken to several of my friends about how impressed I was by the excellent speeches of Jesse Jackson, Deval Patrick and Susan Eisenhower. They didn't even hear them! I suspect commercials ate up the time during which they could have been presented. For me, PBS is the only true and unbiased source for news.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:13 PM 		mary b : I really appreciate the full coverage of the convention just completed. I listened on NPR, then watched on tv, and will watch the Republican one as well - at least as long as my b.s. meter stays normal. One comment on the "expert" commentary on the various PBS news programs, however: I am one of those Americans who didn't know much about either Obama or Biden, and looked to the convention coverage to get a better idea about who they are and where they come from. From my perspective, Obama's speech was very good - it gave me some chuckles, it sometimes choked me up, and in the end I am so happy to not be so darned cynical for at least a day. I have rooted for Obama thus far because I believe we need a major change in our government, but deep down was not really sure that he could pull it off and govern effectively. I feel much better about this ticket after hearing his acceptance speech.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:10 PM 		Elaine : Hopefully the viewers who were incensed that you showed four nights of the DNC will read the program schedule and realize that their side will receive fair and equal treatment. I don't need to be told how to think. I need to see all of it, not just one hour on the major networks to think for myself. Thank you so much for televising the Democratic convention over four nights. From 6-10pm CDT, our household was transfixed. And next week, when you televise the Republican convention, we will watch all four nights also. It is vitally important to understand what each side is thinking and proposing.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:05 PM 		Susan : Your Democratic Convention coverage has been outstanding...not too much, not too little, just right. The conventioneers may not have paid attention to every speaker, but I was appreciative of the opportunity to hear their speeches. Furthermore, my husband and I look forward to the opinions and observations of Brooks and Shields, and so it was an added bonus to hear them nightly this past week. Your extensive coverage meant that, in this household, PBS was the only station on our TV each evening...nothing else could compare. I am looking forward to your Republican Convention coverage next week. Many thanks.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:03 PM 		Barbara Hall : I was thrilled that you covered the DNC and especially greatful to the historians who gave such perspective to our political process. David Brooks at times seemed cynical and angry and unable to add anything useful to the discussion. But overall the coverage was great and I as an American citizen felt like I got to participate in a very exciting and interesting story. Thank you.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:01 PM 		letty morgan : Here in Eugene, OR., the coverage was at least an hour late, so I ended up watching CNN ~~ as Obama gave his acceptance speech, PBS was showing someone speaking an hour earlier ~~ very frustrating as I would have preferred OPB coverage...
Posted:
08/29/08 at
11:00 PM 		Art of San Diego : The NewsHour team hit a grand slam! This is what convention coverage is supposed to be like, dignified, comprehensive, and informative. The combination of Jim Lehrer as anchor, Judy and Gwen and the roving reports, Mark and David as the commentators, and the "Three Historians" is an unbeatable. My wife and I watched all four evenings. Thank you so much for keeping the tradition of journalism alive!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:50 PM 		zinnia : Great coverage! Balanced & sane. ONLY place to watch news. Thanks!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:41 PM 		Rod Thorn : I'm very grateful for your thorough coverage of the Democratic National Convention. When the commercial stations limit their coverage to only an hour or so, important speakers and events get left out. It was very affirming (as an Obama supporter) to see the large number of high-ranked military people who came on stage in his support. I seriously doubt that their presence was reported on very many of the commercial stations. My wife and I put our afternoons and evenings "on hold" to watch all four days, and we were glad we did! Postscript to Jim Lehrer: We didn't say anything at the time, but we thought of you a lot during your absence for medical care, and are glad to see you back!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:40 PM 		JoeJ : PBS's coverage of the Democratic convention by Jim Lehrer and the team was, in my opinion, outstanding - by far the best in letting us see the convention spectacle (and sure, it was a spectacle, and what's wrong with that?), giving us brief but perceptive commentary, background and insights but letting us form our own opinions and sparing us the oceans of blather so common on some channels. We did some channel-surfing from time to time to make coverage comparisons (both wife and I have media/communications experience, though now retired) and we think the Lehrer team far surpassed any other offering.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:38 PM 		Oralie McAfee (O.M.) : The thoughtful, intelligent, and complete coverage of the DNC was a credit to the PBS news team. It was the next best thing to being there--which I was on the final night. Please plan to repeat this four years from now!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:36 PM 		Gus : Terriffic! Both the coverage and commentary were superior to anything else available on networks or cable. Shields and Brooks were an excellent addition-as was the historical perspective. Once again the newshour has proven itself to be the most comprehensive, high quality news organization on the air. Thank you for your commitment to quality news-I want to be informed not entertained.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:26 PM 		Cyn2 : Great coverage. I believe that being able to watch PBS saved my sanity this past week. The cable news channels seemed to have gone over the top and forgotten to actually "cover" the convention. Loved having the team there, and I can never get enough of Shields and Brooks. Thank you.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:22 PM 		Ronald B. Cohen : Dear NewsHour: Thank you for your excellent coverage of the Democratic Convention. My wife and I depend on the NewsHour for its objective review of the most important issues of the daily news, though we wish for more in depth questioning of people interviewed, and greater willingness to present facts when your interviewees present falsehoods. We were deeply moved by the Obama's, the Clinton's, Senator Kennedy, other people who ran for president, and Senator Biden. I think this was the best-managed Democratic Convention in memory, though it would be hard to glean such from the Republican dominated TV, cable and print media. Your Friday "selection" of editors around the nation could be vastly improved: many seemed to be reading from the Rove song book, making me wonder just what they were watching. Please keep up the good work, there is nothing else on the horizon that approaches the NewsHour in value. Ron
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:14 PM 		wileycoyote : I am really impressed with the broadcast of the DNC from Denver. Obama gave one of the most inspiring speeches I have heard to date. He speaks from his heart to the hearts of all Americans. We need a change away from the failed policies of the past eight years under Bush. Obama and Biden will deliver those changes. God Bless them and God bless America.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:12 PM 		Carole Italiano : Your coverage of the convention was excellent. I appreciated the analysis of both sides furnished by your regulars on PBS as well as the interviews with the people on the floor of the convention. It was riveting to me. Keep up the good work by treating your audience as if they had the intelligence to decide for themselves, based on your information, what decision is best for the good of our country. The Democrats are awesome this year!! Please, keep up the quality work! Thanks again, Carole Italiano
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:10 PM 		M Fritz of Arizona : Thank you for your on-going fairness in reporting of news and especially for this week's complete coverage of the convention in Denver. I look forward to next week's Republican convention and your same high standards of professionalism. Your in-depth reporting of every side of an issue is much appreciated and your nightly hour is seldom missed by me.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:08 PM 		Michelle LeBlanc : I appreciated your covering the major hours of each nights convention schedule. I thought Jim Lehrer seemed tired and at many points, not that interested, which I found a bit insulting. Although, as always, he smoothly guided his two commentators to focus on pertinent issues. David Brooks was very respectful of the many speakers during the first three days of the convention who represent views probably opposite from Brook's. I respected him for that, until I read his sophomoric editorial in the times, making fun of the Democrats in his "Speech to the Delegates." Maybe he was exhausted... it just seemed so below his usual well reasoned editorials. There were many shocking technical audio errors where listeners heard people speaking from off screen while people were speaking on screen. I even heard an off screen voice plead "smile!" when the camera was closing in on Obama immediately after his acceptance speech.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:07 PM 		Rosalie Zwain : Yea,Jim Lehrer and the Newshour team! If it were not for your coverage (and CSpan), we would never have heard all of the relevant speeches throughout the Convention - most of which gave us the real zest of the convention, the resonant moments, along with your regular commentary - Brooks and Shields - and the historians. While I sometimes can do without the stentorian Bechloss and NortonSmith voices, they add to the flavor of the event, and a worthy alternative to the shrieking heads on Cable news. I am so very grateful for your unbroken attention to the details of the events you cover. As a criticism, I would have preferred to see and hear more of Gwen Ifill, less of Margaret (although she is a wonderful reporter, this is not her best subject). Other than that, I am most beholden to the Newshour! Thank you. Rosalie Zwain, longtime PBS supporter
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:07 PM 		S Willen : Thank heaven for PBS! You actually allowed us to hear the speeches, rather than speaking over them. I do not have cable TV, but judging from the comments of friends who do, the PBS coverage was far superior. I always enjoy hearing Shields and Brooks (although I do miss David Gergen). I also enjoy the historical perspective of Doris Kearns Goodwin. She brings FDR and LBJ and Lincoln alive. The whole PBS team did a fantastic job. I can't believe the commercial networks are only covering one hour per night of the conventions. My subscription to my local PBS station is worth every penny.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:03 PM 		Gerry Gouldthorpe : Democratic convention reporting and analysis was entertaining and thoughtfully excellent by all contributors. But please,please,please reduce background volume of convention floor noise. From Denver it too frequently drowned studio comments.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:02 PM 		Shirley Allen : Your coverage of the Democratic convention was excellent. I watched every single minute with enthusiasm. I've been a listener and supporter of PBS for at least 50 years; and you've never been better than you were this week. Thank you, Jim, and the excellent crew you have assembled.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:01 PM 		Beverly Magid : I'm a longtime NewsHour viewer so I expected and got intelligent coverage which I watched each night. The networks gave us short shrift, so thanks to PBS. I did get tired however of even the estimable Judy and Gwen repeatedly asking if the "wounds were healed," picking, picking, picking at what were already healed scabs. I was a Hilary supporter, but I'm enthusiastically for Obama, know him better, happier after his speech, loved the overall convention. Keep up the fine work.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:01 PM 		G. Spangler : Your coverage was awesome (as is everything else PBS does!)
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:00 PM 		Gwen Chaplin : Thank you for convention coverage that presented what was happening at the convention, that reported, added analysis, but did not prejudge and lead every interview. We watched every night, all of your coverage and much prefer it to the networks!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
10:00 PM 		G. Spangler : Your coverage was awesome! (as is everything else PBS does!)
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:53 PM 		Margaret : Thank you for covering the Democratic National Convention. I wasted the first 2 days watching CNN who only gave snippets and drove me nuts with their endless commentaries. I was so happy with the 2 days I watched PBS/CT coverage.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:51 PM 		Artesia : Thank you soooo much for your coverage. I learned a lot and enjoyed being a witness to a historic moment in our political history. I do wonder what happened to the traditional roll call that I remember from my youth. When did that change? I wondered all along because wasn't that where a candidate was nominated after some back room negotiations?
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:47 PM 		lucy pdx : I watched the entire convention on C-Span. I can do without the running commentary, even from PBS. (Had my fill of annoying commentary from the Olympics.) I relished watching, listening, forming my own opinions, without talkovers from anybody. C-Span is the way to watch conventions.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:46 PM 		Bernadine Kline : We watched all four evenings of the DNC convention on PBS. It was wonderful to step away from the "noise" of the cable networks and devote attention to issues. You were all even in your assessments with one exception...Mr. Brooks, true to form, rained on everyone's parade. Margaret Warner's interview with Mrs. Obama was excellent. Given more time to tell her story, Michele is a warm and committed mother and wife. I don't have the luxury of time to watch the Republican convention next week as I go back to my teaching job and will be busy planning lessons. But then, Senator McCain's choice of Governor Palin makes a mockery of what should be a serious election process, I'm not worried about missing much. I pity those of you who have to treat Palin as a serious vice presidential candidate.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:38 PM 		marie brown : Thanks for doing me the honor of realizing that I am an intelligent women and you can show me the whole thing,including the commentry, and I will make up my own mind. It is an insult to my intelligence, they do it all the time,to only give me a predigested one hour of so important an event. I will also watch the next week show but already know where I stand . Thanks. You are consistently the best!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:33 PM 		Frank Ingram : The democaratic convention was the biggest meeting of liberal, socialist (communist) ever assembled. Obama spues forth empty retoric, ie change. He wants to tax those in this country whom will work and give money to those whom will not work, whom are leaches on society. This country has never called education a right. It is not a right. I paid totally for any college and technical training I received. Obama wants to take my hard earned income and distribute it to minorities, and africans. We owe africa nothing, nor any other country. We owe blacks in this country nothing. If they want opportunity let them go out work as I have all my life. Obama will realize that this country will not be converted to communism even though that is his goal.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:32 PM 		Marie : My husband and I think that your coverage of the DNC was great. We particularly enjoy the comments of Brooks and Shield even though we don't always agree with them. Thanks for the interesting and not too biased comments.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:28 PM 		Linda Draper : I am so grateful for the coverage and commentary that The News Hour staff provided. It was wise, witty, insightful--wonderful all around. What an amazing moment in our history. It is very exciting.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:27 PM 		Rosemary : Looking forward to your coverage of the Republican Convention...if it is as complete and interesting as your DNC coverage...Really appreciate the Newshour and Shields and Brooks, our weekly favorites...and now for days at a time! Keep up the good work.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:27 PM 		goldenbuffalo : Tonight's interview with the four newspaper folks from San Diego, Tampa, Pittsburgh, and Kansas City was so depressing after the tremendously uplifting speech by Barack Obama the night before. The Kansas City and San Diego folks seemed still interested in seeing what happens while the other two seemed so depressed. Try to get four folks with some life still left in them next time.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:27 PM 		Will : Your coverage did a good job of constantly repeating the Republican talking points. Too much commentary from "pundits" and "historians", some of the statements were just plain wrong such as "no idelogical differences between Clinton and Obama [Iraq war vote? Attack Iran?] and "no Democratic candidate has won a majority of the vote since Jimmey Carter! Al Gore WON the majority of the Popular vote in 2000. How about talking with some regular people or actually talking about important issues.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:22 PM 		Mary V. Bothe : Mrs. Obama says that we need to change the world to what it "should be". Is it deomcratic to say that I should be taxed for women who want abortions? The whole "convention theme" is tt heighten emotionalism with passionate speeches designed to create the godlike image of a "saviour" who will ( somehow?) make all the necessary "changes" to make our lives completely happy. It is so sad that no one addresses the evil which will eventually destroy this country--abortion on demand. No matter what the democrats or republicans profess to do to make our lives better, they cannot bring back the millions of tiny Americans we have killed. The first person, black or white, man or woman, dem or rep who stands up for these little victims, will have my vote--and the votes of millions of Americans who are waiting for this voice.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:20 PM 		Joe Meyer (New Braunfels TX) : Your coverage was as repetative and slow as a Pledge Drive. I kept waiting for the break away to the local phone bank and that 1-800 number. You are just as entrenched in the "news cycle" as any other news organization. Why? Do your Corporate Sponsors demand it? You elevate 'Talking Heads' to the status of news itself. I'm just plain tired of "perspective." I like what Ray Suarez has done with his beard, and his thining hair and glasses make him really distinguished. Gwen Ifill was the Sharpest, most ahead of the thought, of all your anchors/moderators. Jim and Judy, Shields and Brooks were just plain puds, Phoning-It-In. Remember when Walter Cronkite was passe? They are there. So kudos to PBS, feel free to insert your pledge drive into the Republican Convention.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:16 PM 		jessie and mark : Thank you for allowing us to hear and see much of the convention without "talking over" it, as the commercial networks often did. You had commentary, and it was thoughtful, but you were wise enough not to comment against the proceedings of the convention, in which case we would have head neither. I watched most of Thursday's evening session, and appreciated your coverage. Thanks for all you do! We do contribute to public television, and will continue to do so.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:15 PM 		Vici : Generally quite good as I expected. Would have appreciated more time focussed on the podium and less commentary. Yes, the podium gets boring, but I would appreciate the opportunity to make my own choices about which ones I listen to. I live in MN so I'm already sick and tired of the GOP convention and it hasn't even started!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:11 PM 		Shar : Am I the only person who is outraged that McCain would choose a running mate that is so inappropriate? How dare he assume that women will vote for a female simply because of sex! I will never vote for another republican candidate for anything.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:02 PM 		Jim Sunshine : I understand your desire to bring the views of non-News Hour people to the audience, but those presented on Friday night were unfortunate examples. As editorial writers they may represent the views of the non-metro press, but they were sadly deficient in articulating views worth hearing. The man from Pittsburgh had nothing to say, and said it several times. The other two were slightly better, but on the whole the three of them were not worth a listener's time, and that is being kind. What this says about the state of our newspapers is another story, possibly one worth some NewsHour attention.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
09:01 PM 		Fenwick Carlile : I was/ am-pleased. DONE GOOD! fc
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:56 PM 		TC : Thank you for the great coverage. I also appreciated KCET's live streaming.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:53 PM 		Mawsrusty : Since I'm a NewsHour addict, (always have "dinner with Jim") there was never an issue of watching the convention on any other channel, and I was not disappointed. Your coverage, as always, was terrific. My only complaint is a technical one: Is there any way the audio engineers can subdue the background racket in the hall, so that the commentary can be clearly heard? That was expected when Judy was interviewing people on the floor, but couldn't Jim, David, and Mark be in a more protected space so they didn't have to outshout the applause and enthusiasm from the delegates?
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:50 PM 		David & Meredith : My wife and I are a two-party couple. We so enjoyed PBS coverage of the convention and look forward to the coverage of the Republican convention. So far superior to the other major networks - really. And Shields & Brooks are a pleasure to watch; they make insightful points but are always respectful. Thank you and keep up the good work!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:48 PM 		Michael Grasso : Thank God for PBS. Cable News is the worst thing ever to happen to Western Civilization and Democracy. But even with PBS, there is often too much talk and pundentry - "experts" telling me what I should think. The only thing better than PBS is C-SPAN. They allow me to watch and listen and make up my own mind. PBS should guard against becoming a "cable news" source. Beware.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:44 PM 		K Teck : We agree with the dismay about David Brooks in the New York Times today--such a flippant, nasty attempt at put-down, in such contrast to his usual objective & wise commentary on PBS. Let's hope he was just tired & on deadline & half asleep when he wrote it; usually we appreciate his comments on TV very much, as well as mark Shields and Jim Lehrer. Congratulations on the coverage of the Democratic convention! Also agree with those who find it scary that a heartbeat might mean the most powerful job in the world might go to someone who is governor of a state with only a fraction of the population of the county in which I live!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:44 PM 		Vanessa Leida : Thanks for broadcasting the entire convention. It was great to be able to watch all of it.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:44 PM 		Lars : It's hard to tell the PBS reporters from the Democrat delegates. There is usually a left-wing under-tow at PBS which is tolerable, but this past week has been filled with flagrant gushing and slow-pitch questions. How about asking a hard question like “Isn’t your candidate’s résumé pretty slim to be running for President?” I expect better from PBS. I'm sure the questioning will be harder next week, no doubt due to my prompting.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:44 PM 		Gramma Jane : I can't compare coverage, because I never switched. And I can't be objective anyway. I love you guys; I know I can depend on you. And my cat, Ernie, loves you, too. At one point he jumped up onto the table in front of the TV and stroked David Brooks' flat-screened face.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:39 PM 		Lee Miller : I watched every night and enjoyed the usual in depth PBS coverage. Thank you all for a job well done.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:39 PM 		Carolina C. : What would I do w/o PBS? Your coverage of the Democratic Convention was, well, democratic. Excellent. I will be watching the Republican coverage as well...and Thank You !!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:39 PM 		emma jack : I watched every minute of your coverage. The historian's perspective and Brooks and Shields were informative and interesting
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:38 PM 		Squidman : And I thought the only "fair and balanced" cover-eege was on the Bush network, F_x !
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:37 PM 		Kathy Teck : Thank you for your superb coverage of the Democratic convention, with objective & reflective commentaries, and for showing the main speeches without interferance. This is a public service that is greatly appreciated!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:36 PM 		Tom Fierst : Thank you for the coverage of the conventions. This is why I support PBS. Citizens need indepth coverage. Commercial TV is headlines, sell, sell, sell!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:34 PM 		maddiemay : Thank you so much for your convention coverage. First of for doing it from 8PM on and secondly, for giving us coverage without spin or yelling. I know that Mark is from the liberal side and David is from the conservative side but they give their opinions with graciousness and an understanding that differences are OK. Their opinions are thoughful--and they do not YELL. I also appreciated the input from the historians--they put things in perspective. I appreciated the fact that we could hear the speeches and see the things on the floor. Your coverage was FABULOUS. Thank you and I'm looking forward (well, sort of) to the Republican convention. Thanks for great and complete coverage.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:31 PM 		Lois Murphy : Thank you so much for presenting the Democratic convention (and I'm sure you will do the same for the Republicans....although I'll watch with less enthusiasm) without all those damnably irritating "analysts" who tell me what I'm thinking, how I'm perceiving and what my ultimate reaction will be. I told EVERYONE I know to watch PBS for a broadcast which assumes they not only have sufficient mental ability to turn on their t.v. but also to analyze for themselves what they are seeing, hearing and digesting. You folks at PBS give me hope that fair news coverage is not as dead as it seems on so many occasions.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:30 PM 		Richard : Thank you for providing the thoughtful, comprehensive, and professional non-hyped coverage of the Democratic Party Convention. And special thanks for filling me in without filling me up. Priceless!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:26 PM 		Henry Harsch : THANK YOU for your comprehensive & balanced coverage. The entire team did a grand, informative job. Glad that you had Brooks & Shields & the historians with you; to me they rounded out your coverage. One evening I switched around the "major" news companies to see how they were covering the affair. Wasn't worth it unless all you want is a synopsis. Thank heavens you're around to fill the void.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:24 PM 		Kay : As a first class, 100% political junkie, I thought your coverage was terrific. You gave us varied approaches, differing viewpoints and, most important, uninterrupted coverage of the major speeches. I'm a Democrat, but I'm looking forward to watching your coverage of the Republican convention.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:22 PM 		Jim : THANK YOU for the great DNC convention coverage. We appreciated the length and depth of the coverage and the Shields / Brooks and historian comments. Keep it up!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:21 PM 		J. L. Heise : I have never watched an entire convention before, but I always watch The News Hour and I love the Shields/Brooks commentary on Fridays. (Why is David Brooks so much better on air than in print? Is it talking with Mark that stimulates the clearer thinking part of his brain?) I left the room only when I had to all four nights. The PBS interviews and discussions caught the tension at the convention (submerged hatred, I read today) prior to the Clinton appearances, as well as the building anticipation after relief prevailed, and I never felt mislead or distracted by Jim Lehrer's thoughtful questions and comments as he choreographed the coverage and commentaries every evening. Thank you! You are consistently smart, stimulating, and rewarding to watch.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:20 PM 		Mary : I don't have satellite or cable. I have an antenna on a pole, but I have PBS and The News Hour. I got see four hours of solid convention coverage each night with Jim Lehrer and my favorite duo -- Shields and Brooks. And then I got a one hour review with Charlie Rose and his top flight panel. Thanks. You folks are genuine news people, a rare species today.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:18 PM 		Rosetta : Thank You, Thank you, Thank You! Because of PBS, I felt like I was actually in Denver attending the Convention. I was able to experience the excitment as well as the heartfelt emotions generated by those that spoke from the heart. Again, thank you PBS for the opportunity.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:16 PM 		virginia : I do not subscribe to paid TV. I greatly appreciate PBS for making the intelligent decision to show America important information. I believe the public air ways has an obligation to educate. Thank you PBS for being there! I have not supported PBS financially for a while. I definitely will again. Thank you!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:15 PM 		Jodie Jenks and Lenore Schram : We give you and your whole crew an A+ for your coverage of the 2008 Democratic Convention. Keep it up!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:15 PM 		Robert and Shirley Cooper : We think your coverage of the convention was by far the best of the networks. We appreciate the completeness, the skill of all on your team, and the comments of the "experts." We do not have cable or satellite, but can't imagine that anything better appeared there. We also appreciate your objectivity. We watched every minute we could.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:15 PM 		Leah and Tom Fihe : We appreciate the full three-hour coverage. Your coverage enabled us to listen to more of the convention speakers than the abbreviated reporting by the other channels. The remarks by the PBS commentators (everybody) were informative, helpful, and unbiased. The three historians were outstanding. Jim Lehrer did an outstanding job of leading the conversations in productive directions. Commentators from the other channels often use confrontational language that blurrs understanding of the issues. Non-PBS commentators seem to pursue a goal of personal aggrandizement rather than pursuing the truth. We watched PBS all four nights from the start to the end.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:14 PM 		Cindy : I am shocked at the notion that anyone would feel comfortable with the comment Obama gave about his patriotism and his so called threat to McCain for questioning it. McCain and every American should question his patriotism and so should the news and yet you guys do not. I would like to hear him and his wife give clear answers at their remarks about not being proud of this country until now and why now after twenty years of sitting under his spiritual mentor he now has a problem with the messages against this country and the white race. Also, I would like you guys to ask him about his relationships with so many Muslims. Because if he were born of a Muslim father and went to Muslim school and then later turned to Christianity, isn't that considered punishable by death with Muslims and yet they are his friends. I would like to see the press confront him on these issues and not stop until you have received clear concise answers.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:13 PM 		Carter : The Newshour is broadcast journalism at its best, IMHO. However, during this week's DNC I kept wishing for less instant analysis and more coverage from the floor.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:12 PM 		Marie Ramey : To Whom It May Concern: I wanted to comment on David Brooks article "A Speech to the Delegates" in today's NYT. The message in this article is highly insulting and beneath David Brooks. Until today, I thought David Brooks was a fairly impartial intelligent journalist. But to write something with this tone, which is incredibly infantile, is astonishing for a journalist who prides himself on working for the NYT. I've watched him on The News Hour with Jim Lehr, but will not be watching this segment as long as he is a part of the team. He has disgraced himself, to those of us who needed an intelligent objective opinion. MR Petaluma, California
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:11 PM 		Jeanne : Thank you for your coverage of the DNC. I deliberately chose PBS to watch because I can no longer tolerate CNN and MSNBC with everyone talking through each other; no in depth. PBS takes a higher road; always does. I don't know what is the matter with David and Mary!! Maybe they'll watch the next convention!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:11 PM 		Sandra : I have only one negative thing to say about your coverage of the convention, and that is that we had to watch a commercial about deep-sea oil drilling. I hope the rest of the country didn't have to be insulted with that attempt at oil company hypnosis.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:11 PM 		DB : Why did you have these so-called media experts "analyze" Obama's speech, when it was painfully clear that several of them (Tampa, Pittsburgh, and San Diego) had axes to grind? They weren't asked to give concrete critiques of his speech, but instead were given lobbed softball questions. If you're going to have this group back for the Republican Convention analysis, I'd like to see these media "experts" asked to respond point for point on the issues that were briefly raised but never really addressed. For example, since Obama was accused by your Pittsburgh commentator of talking in "generalities," I think he should be asked to demonstrate how McCain is being so much more specific. I certainly haven't seen that to be the case. Why let these people get away with sloppy commentary? I am disappointed.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:09 PM 		Nessen Bohnert Tan Family : Our whole family regularly watches PBS and we love this show. However, we are disturbed that neither Brooks, Shields or Lehrer commented on the irresponsibility of McCain's VP choice. Does anyone seriously believe that if Senator McCain should be unable to serve that someone of Governor Palin's inexperience would be capable of leading this country? It is not only an irresponsible choice, it is a dangerous choice. Susan, Robert and Julie Nessen; Peter Bohnert; Catherine, Susan and Sarah Tan.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:07 PM 		Bill Hunt : PBS did an outstanding job in covering the Democratic National Convention. I particularly liked the careful balance that was maintained between key convention speakers and commentary. I watch the News Hour every evening and find it to be the best in all dimensions. Your convention coverage continued in the same excellent tradition. Congratulations and thank you.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:06 PM 		Don Metoyer : Bad coverage, first night;seemed to be trying to add something that was not being said. Excellent coverage for the next three days. Only network that let us listen to the speaker the majority of the time. Great job.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:06 PM 		Roger & Mary Cleaver : The very best coverage of all broadcast and cable networks. No analysts talking over each other and hollering to try to get their point across. We watched all 4 nights of the Democrats and are looking forward to the Republican convention.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:06 PM 		Katherine D'Addio : I checked several other channels and came back to PBS. Watched every night and am looking forward to the Republican Convention next week. It was just as interesting and enjoyable as the Olympics the week before. Thank you.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:04 PM 		Patty O'Dell : PBS is the only place I get my world news and Friday nights in particular (PBS news, Washington Week and Off the record) so I was anxious to watch the PBS coverage of the convention. I loved it. Instead of useless rehash and drivel between speeches, the historical perspectives offered were especially interesting and I always enjoy Shields and Brooks. Truthfully, while I didn't watch all of the coverage (couldn't stay up that long!) this is the FIRST time I've ever watched a convention! Thank you, again, PBS
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:03 PM 		Vince : Great coverage! I so appreciate you spending more time on the convention and not on the talking heads.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:03 PM 		Larry and Lynn : In our household we start each nights news with the CNN Situation Room then on to the local news after which we turn to Free Speech TV and after the days news highlights we switch to PBS. It is there where we found the most interesting presentation of the convention. Our grateful respect to your entire team is what we would like to send your way. Please accept our thanks and please, please continue your great programing. Thanks
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:03 PM 		steven h : I thought it was good job it's good to stay informed. some will complain, so to them I say where is your remote?
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:03 PM 		Lauren Alpin : Are you asking for suggestions or praise or what? I suggest that you get more women on the show or some different colors. Our mainstream political parties have more affirmative action diversity than you can seem to muster for your regular analysts.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:02 PM 		MiKat : Brooks and Shields are great as are all of the regulars. The one complaint was when the News Hour coverage had to sign off at 10 PM (in Chicago) and it went to the local coverage. There was no analysis after the main speech by the News Hour analysts. Overall it was excellent.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:02 PM 		daedelus : your dnc convention converage was superb! i was amazed that your pbs station gave me more fair, intellectual comments and more uninterruped viewing that anyone other than c-span. i ended up watching you entirely by the 2nd day, and usually i'm bouncing around 4 different stations every few minutes. i love both shields and brooks. neither upsets my stomach as so many others do. thanks so much for spending the money for this great coverage.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
08:01 PM 		Virginia : The coverage was terrific - intelligent, helpful interesting analyses just what we expect from PBS.We appreciated the focus on the speakers.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:59 PM 		J. L. Chastain : By far the best coverage of the convention was the NewHour, with very good analysis and best at not overtalking the speeches. After the first day, we stayed almost exclusively on PBS, with occasional short trips to CSPAN. We can always count on PBS-and especially the NewsHour reporters- to be the best at news coverage and fair commentary. Thanks to all your staff for the good job they did!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:59 PM 		Norman J Sissman : I've admired the Lehrer hour for over 2 decades. Your convention coverage topped anything I have ever seen. Extremely informative, talked to the right people, balanced. Congratulations!!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:58 PM 		Richard Hill : While your coverage was superior to that of other American news networks I found that the "talk-talk-talk" was almost as absurd and biased as right-wing foxnews. Time to just report the news and not the "they say this" ... "they say that" journalism which is destroying the democracy it was supposed to defend. All those republican folks in control of PBS are laughing hard now.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:57 PM 		John Grube : Thank goodness for PBS. I enjoyed your coverage and I don't usually watch convention coverage. I found the historical perspectives to be interesting and relevant. PBS continues to be the only televised news source for thought provoking discussions and a variety of perspectives of today's current issues.I watched a few minutes of other networks' coverage and it was useless, as usual, just like their news coverage. Thank you for your constant excellence!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:50 PM 		River : PBS was the ONLY place I watched the convention and the ONLY place I watch the news because the spin on network news is distressing and insulting to a viewer's intelligence. I greatly appreciates that you present different opinions and analysis, however, too often these are also painfully transparent as to the speakers affiliations and agendas - the positions are dualistic opposites and omit the deeper, more nuanced, diverse possibilities. It is difficult for me to believe that some of these well educated, seasoned "experts" miss so much because their minds are so narrowly focused. (How did all of your experts miss what Obama said about how he would pay for his programs or how he would create new jobs?) I'd like to hear from more people like Mark Shields, who seems open minded, very fair, realizes the history and compexity of situations and has nothing to prove. David Brooks, on the other hand, at times seems a bit too glib and arrogant in his criticism and sometimes strikes me as an armchair quarterback who has never been near the field. Then again, I've never been in HIS shoes, so perhaps I should reserve judgement on his game. Thanks for the opportunity to offer feedback and thanks for providing the very best television on television!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:37 PM 		Larry Rapant : I enjoyed the convention coverage very much. As always I appreciate the thoroughness and continuity of the coverage. Had I been watching it on commercial TV, I would have missed a number of interesting presentations, such as the typical Americans speaking just before Obama. Thank you.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:35 PM 		Paul '52 : It might be of interest to note that Governor Palin’s first substantive comment as a national candidate was, well, “untrue” It was about the “bridge to nowhere” - Here’s what she said: In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves. Well, it's always, though, safer in politics to avoid risk, to just kind of go along with the status quo. But I didn't get into government to do the safe and easy things. A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built. But the facts are otherwise; look at the reporting in real time, she simply refused to spend State money on it, and rejected it because the feds refused to fund 100%: "Under mounting political pressure over pork projects, Congress stripped the earmark — or stipulation — that the money be used for the airport, but still sent the money to the state for any use it deemed appropriate. The state took much of that for other projects, and Palin on Friday said the Ketchikan project was $329 million short of full funding. "It's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Palin said. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened," she said. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20908207/ As the local press noted: "In September, Palin ended work on the Gravina project, acknowledging that the state no longer had a way to pay for a project that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Alaska is short $329 million of the $398 million needed to build the bridge, Palin said." http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/100207/sta_20071002002.shtml She didn't turn down the money, she took it, and spent it elsewhere, AND THEN COMPLAINED THAT THE REST OF US DIDN'T GIVE HER MORE.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:35 PM 		Bert & Carol Smith : Wonderful coverage we enjoyed watching the progress of the convention without the political hype always present on the commercial channels. We always turn to PBS when we want the real story. Keep up the good work a real oasis in the land of made up news for effect and ratings.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:27 PM 		Anne, Boulder CO : I was glued to your TV coverage all week and will be so again tonight on Rocky Mountain PBS. You provide great critically thoughtful commentators--the historians were simply wonderful. And I would not miss a moment of Shields and Brooks. The on the ground team--Woodruff and Ifill are always spot on. And Jim, we are so glad to have you back! Be well. Next week we get to do all over again.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:26 PM 		R. Clarke : I am a Canadian who takes a great interest in the politics of our powerful neighbor and leader of the free world. I was shocked at Mr Macain choosing such a person as his running mate. God help us all if anything should happen to him while president.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:16 PM 		Pat : The responses from representatives from Tampa, FLA. and Pittsburgh, PA. on tonight's News Hour appear to be obviously biased for John McCann. Neither had much positive to say about the speech last night or the Obama/Biden ticket, which is counter to "word on the street" today about the speech/ticket. Talk to more "grass roots" folks about the candidates, rather than people in the news profession, mentioned above, who have more obviously slanted points-of-view. Previously used focus groups were much more balanced.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:15 PM 		Herb Kennedy : Shields was his usual friendly observer; I watch him when I can; a chief reason is to contrast him with David Brooks who was fairly tolerable until his wrap up, condescending, pompous and bias. He displayed his right wing soul when there was no time for Shields to rebut. Please justify his presence.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:14 PM 		Donald Darnell : First-rate coverage. My wife and I watched every night and were impressed by the guest historians and journalists. The NewsHour regulars were excellent guides throughout the convention.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:13 PM 		Al and Velma Buls : We thought PBS did a very good job of covering the Democratic convention and we watched if every night from beginning to end. Thanks.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:13 PM 		Erica : I was very impressed, as usual, by your coverage of the Democratic Convention. I thought you did a very good job and look forward to your coverage of the Republican Convention as well. There was just one thing that I wondered about - why so little comment on John Kerry's speech? I thought it was excellent! In spite of that one little criticism, I say "Keep up the excellent work".
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:11 PM 		Elaine Wright : I found the coverage of the Democratic Convention to be absolutely first rate. I always appreciate Jim Lehrer's civility in relating to his fellow newspeople. Also, I find it especially interesting to listen to Shields and Brooks discuss their impressions. Mark Shields especially offers insightful perspectives. I am very grateful for this type of coverage that includes many types of viewpoints -- the delegates on the floor being interviewed as well as the historians lending their knowledge enriching one's understanding of what is happening today. Great job!!!!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:10 PM 		Hector Tobar : I congratulate you on a magnificent coverage of the Democratic National Convention. There is a good reason that I only trust PBS to give me a clear and unbias report of the events. I refuse to watch these events on CNN or commercial television, I find them insulting to my intelligence. Thank you Jim Lehrer and his team.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:09 PM 		sheila Edee : I wish I could be as eloquent as your panel as they appraised events of the Dem Convention. To a person, you were fair, measured, to the point, and you wore well. You were courteous, enthusiastic, and led us seamlessly . I am an Undecided Voter in a family of conservatives. A brown shoe in a room of tuxedos. I will look forward next week to experiencing your band of pros. Keep your recipe for critical analysis. You do not waste words or anyone's time.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:08 PM 		Fman : The Best! How do I know? I actually tried several times to wacth CNN,MSNBC,and Fox. They were nauseating. One suggestion- please, please get rid of the "historians." How can you have historians giving instant play-by-play analysis and judgment? I can understand the lack of long term perspectives from the usual suspects - politians, journalists, and newspaper editors but not from so called historians.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:07 PM 		Donald Darnell : First-rate coverage. My wife and I watched every night and were impressed by the informed commentary of the guest historians and journalists. The NewsHour regulars were excellent guides throughout. Lehrer staff were
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:04 PM 		Carol Levin : I was very disappointed with the four syndicated columnists/editorial page editor you presented on tonight's (Fri, 8/29) show. Even when I disagree with their points of view, I usually respect PBS commentators for their insight and thoughtfulness. Tonight's were purely party-line with no added value. Compare this to your commentators, Shields and Brooks who, altholugh they clearly sit in certain camps, still can present cogent, thought-provoking ideas.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:04 PM 		Mary and Oliver Warren : Thank you for your excellent, unbiased coverage of the Democratic Convention. We watched your program every night and especially appreciated the commentaries from Mark Shields and David Brooks. Keep up your great work!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:02 PM 		w lane : great, as it should be!!! i did go back and forth and i would have to say that PBS was simply the best.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
07:01 PM 		John Dilbeck : As someone who has neither cable nor satellite TV, I want to thank you for the excellent job you did this week in covering the Democratic National Convention. None of the other broadcast networks even came close to the full coverage you offered. It is much better to actually hear the speeches for myself than to hear or read someone else's opinion of the speech. Well done!
Posted:
08/29/08 at
06:59 PM 		Louise Makrauer : Thank you for fantastic, substantive, intelligent coverage. Every single person - Woodruff, Ifill, Lehrer, Shields, Brooks, the 3 historians, et al - was at his or her best. It was an oasis among the broadcast and cable channels. Thank God for PBS. We would be lost without you.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
06:56 PM 		Steve Fournier : Thank you for giving us an unbiased look at the convention. The 24 hour news networks and off air networks did a very poor job of their coverage of the convention. Pundits and spin artists need new jobs. Its nice to know we the people have one last network that gives us real news.
Posted:
08/29/08 at
06:35 PM 		Matt Kenson : As usual, the NewsHour team provided more complete, well-balanced, and insightful coverage of the DNC than any of its competitors. TiVo gets the season-pass treatment for both conventions in this household. Judging from Brook's NYT column this morning and his panning of Obama's speech last night (and I didn't totally disagree with him...), maybe he should get some rest before tonight's show! Or was he channeling Woody Allen?
MAIN: About Us
Democratic Convention
Republican Convention
ABOUT US | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS / FEEDS: 
POD|RSS
Funded, in part, by:ChevronIntelBNSF RailwayWells FargoToyotaMonsantoCorporation for Public Broadcasting
            Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station.
PBS Online Privacy Policy

Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.