The Online NewsHour: About Us | Feedback

E-mail This Page	Print This Page

New York Times Article Questions PBS's Relevancy

February 28, 2008

On Sunday, Feb. 17, The New York Times published an article entitled "Is PBS Still Necessary?" The piece touched off debate within the Times community, and when the paper's Web site closed its comments section Monday evening, they had received more than 800 responses. The NewsHour has received more than 6,600 responses.

You can read the comments on the Times site, or join the debate by posting your comments here.

Make a Comment | Comments ( 6637 ) | Email

NewsHour Viewer Comments Page 1 \| 2 \| 3

Posted: 03/ 4/08 at 01:25 PM	Rosamond Robbert, Kalamazoo MI : How else can we get news on cable? PBS and the News Hour are essential. The News Hour is the only source of reasoned, non-hyper news available to us. The reporters are incredibly professional and guests are well chosen. I cannot imagine what we would do without the News Hour. Recently our cable company (Charter) in their wisdom took away WTTW a PBS station in Chicago. This despite pleas and letters from viewers. I do not get the sense that PBS is a high priority channel for these companies. We live in dread that our only access to the News Hour through WVGU will also be removed.

Posted: 03/ 4/08 at 12:56 AM	George Miller : The PBS News Hour is objectve, comprehensive and thorough. The new york times is politically and $$ motivated like all the other Goliath mainstream 10 second "media" malls.

Posted: 03/ 3/08 at 11:35 PM	Renee & David : What we cannot understand is the assertion that there is no longer a need for PBS since WE have so many "options". Whoever makes a comment like this is not a very discriminating viewer. To mention cable stations like the History Channel and Discovery Channel are great for people who like commericals, further the level of expertise is not in the league of the PBS programs. Where on ANY station are programs of the quality of FRONTLINE, American Experience, Moyers Journal, Nature, Now, Charlie Rose or other PBS / NPR public affairs & news programs. The expertise and intelligence of their contributors/writers/producers/particpants are vital for our democracy. As for our cultural life, where else are we to find programs of the quality of American Masters or Great Performances? There are many more programs of excellence to call attention to that are NOWHERE else to be found on our PUBLIC AIRWAYS. PLEASE don't take PBS or NPR away when we need it even more than ever.

Posted: 03/ 3/08 at 08:47 PM	Skati : I record the newshour on tivo so I can watch it when I get home, or later at night. I find I do not have time or interest to watch every segment, but unlike network news broadcasts, I do not have to frequently fast-forward through air-headed drivel about some celebrity's mental and papparazzi problems, which I find depressing to be reminded of, not so much for the plight of the poor victims subjected to the media harrassment, as the reminder that there must be millions of viewers that have so little life of their own that they waste it away watching such trash. CNN used to be good until it decided to go 'soft' (in the head). The PBS newshour is one of the few benchmarks left out there in an avalanche of infotainment where the boundary between fantasy and reality has become so blurred that it is clear that many news organizations feel it is no longer important to make clear where that boundary is.

Posted: 03/ 3/08 at 06:24 PM	DonIrene : PBS gives us the most interesting, informative programs, particularly TheNewsHour, and the suggestion that its time to eliminate PBS is shocking. The depth, clarity, intelligence and humanity of TheNewsHour team is strikingly superior to any other TV news source. WE NEED PBS

Posted: 03/ 3/08 at 04:24 PM	Robert Graves : News Hour is the ONLY daily news show (as opposed to a feature news program such as Frontline) that I trust...that's a sad commentary on the state of television news, but doesn't diminish the quality of the News Hour in any way. It's the only show that has interviewers who have any depth of knowledge about the subject they're reporting on. Compare that to a John King on CNN who recently conducted an interview with the opening remark to his subject that he doesn't really understand the subject. So, is PBS still necessary...you're damned right it is!!!

Posted: 03/ 3/08 at 01:27 PM	Marilyn O'Leary : My husband and I watch the News Hour every day to keep up with important news and to receive a more in depth and fair treatment of issues than we can get anywhere else on tv. It is critical to keep the News Hour on not only because it is fair, but because it is free. We don't have cable tv, and so most of our tv fare comes from PBS. The News Hour is at the top of our list for viewing. We also read our local daily newspaper and the NY Times, but we still need the commentary and focus of the News Hour to give us the up to the minute news. One of the main reasons we contribute to PBS is for the News Hour.

Posted: 03/ 3/08 at 10:32 AM	Denise : PBS is an absolute necessity. The NewsHour and Washington Week are by far the best in news reporting and roundtable discussion. I don't have cable, by choice, and would be very disappointed if PBS was not there for me on a daily basis. Network TV is horrible.

Posted: 03/ 3/08 at 04:06 AM	Nick Lento : As flawed as PBS is, and as compromised as it has become by corporate money and the associated pressures that entails; it is ABSOLUTELY "still" necessary!!! In fact, we need MORE publicly funded mass media, not less!!!

Posted: 03/ 2/08 at 11:16 AM	martha : I believe PBS is the only concern that would produce and broadcast a program series like the upcoming Unnatural Causes about health disparities in the US.( a program what is geared to inform and engage citizens to address a major ill in our society). There is No comparison between The News Hour and network nightly news coverage for example the depth of coverage of a topic. And what kind of an argument against The News Hour is it that some of the original viewers are now in assisted living?????

Posted: 03/ 2/08 at 02:18 AM	K. Bousfield : For TV news there is no fairer, than the NewsHour, with Jim Lehrer. Where is news found on TV ? Surely not on Fox, CNN or ABC. From them bombings, fires, crashes, and riots; vacuous starlets, pro sports and new fad diets; Oh, heavens, just for once please spare us from more stories of that hotel heiress. Celeb worship and limpid reportage do not explain a NINJA mortgage. A cooking planet ? Rising China ? America’s decline? For things like this they have no time; Unless jammed in jolting 15 second stimulations between babes selling beer, and cars, and cheap vacations. They follow one true route to succeed “If it bleeds, it leads”, - a singularly simple creed. No, when the working day is done, for America’s news, there is but one, (Alright, the BBC makes two, depending on your point of view, And both are found on PBS, and much else as well, but I digress;) Some believe that freedom can only be defended, with guns and guts as (in their view) God intended. But freedom of speech is what matters most, And there, like Horatio, stand the NewsHour and its host. Ignorance and extremism are by gentle truth beaten back; teased out with the grin, the wit and balance they lack. News for adults ? True enough, indeed. This is news for those who like to think and read, But for former Wishbone watchers, too. They might one day succeed to positions in which they just might lead. Or for those who simply wish to make the chances less remote in November of casting an informed vote. Daily summary, then fair analysis of breadth and depth and scope; and rational discussion of conflicting views gives hope. That reason may prevail, that those who seek to understand, may find in this show a promised land. On Friday, Shields and Brooks review the week (where Shields and Gurgen used to speak) Finally, at the end, in silence, one by one; Those humbling photos, full of youth and promise, and belief Each one a heartbreaking reminder of a wife, or a child, or a parent’s grief. This program stands out far beyond the rest The New York Times must surely speak in jest For TV news there is no fairer, than the NewsHour, with Jim Lehrer. Notes: (1) Is Jim Lehrer really 73 ? It must be love of his work that keeps him so young. (2) Margaret Warner is a very, very good journalist. (3) Ray Suarez' recent piece on Spanish speakers in the US was quite something. But then again, it is work like that the sets the NewsHour apart from all other US news shows. A good thing, too, because there is no comparable alternative program in the US. (3) If you miss the NewsHour, in essence you can't get hard news on the TV in the US. Similarly, most hotels deliver only USA Today (suitable for lining birdcages, trees died for this ?) Americans may be accustomed to it, but if you are visiting from outside the US, it can be quite frustrating.

Posted: 03/ 1/08 at 09:26 PM	Bullwinkle : PBS is one of the few media/information outlets that is helping people to keep thinking and learning, instead of "trying to dumb them up." Shades of 1984, anyone? One comment: please get NOW back to one hour, love Bill Moyers Journal, keep the News Hour and Washington Week on the air and get History Detectives back on our local channels, instead of just one channel that's not even in the area.

Posted: 03/ 1/08 at 05:31 PM	Dominique : Dear PBS Team: You might want to send a simple little 'thank you' note to the Times for the additional $12 bucks a month that I am rerouting to PBS instead of my $3.00 weekly cost for the Sunday Times. Really it is the thought that counts:) I plan my viewing schedule one week in advance, PBS is the first planned, as all others pale by comparison.

Posted: 02/29/08 at 11:17 PM	Huang : Hey i am Chinese and have been learning English for more than ten years and i chanced upon PBS six or seven years ago and i've kept coming back to check on this website ever since and recommend it to folks around me. you give ideal material for English learners with all these audio/video clips and scripts and on top of that you open a window to the world. i really appreciate that and i want to say: thank you!

Posted: 02/29/08 at 07:24 PM	Samuel Bartmess : I am 24 years old and have supported KUNM and the NewsHour since I was 20. I feel their programming and coverage is a insightful contribution to our collective dialogue here in the states.

Posted: 02/29/08 at 04:38 PM	Kevin Hutchcroft : There simply is no comparison; the News Hour is the only source for daily news without obsessively "marketing" its anchors and reporters. It is the only broadcast that delivers objective and in-depth coverage without the sensational, without flashy graphics. It best maintains fidelity to basic journalistic principles.

Posted: 02/29/08 at 11:28 AM	Reese's : I've been a loyal fan of PBS for years now. Ever since I was a little kid up til now and I will remain so for the rest of my life. How dare the New York Times even say that PBS isn't "relevant". It's still as relevant (even MORE so now) as it was in the first place and needed more than ever these days. God bless Jim Lehrer and everyone else who has a show on PBS, especially Bill Moyers, David Brachaccio (sp?), and Gwen Effiel. Keep on fighting the good fight you guys!

Posted: 02/29/08 at 08:50 AM	Mary Blythe : The NY Times negative article on the necessity of PBS was a frivolous attempt to show how 'modern'the NY Times has become. One of the most perfect traits of America, is our Publiic Broadcasting System!

Posted: 02/29/08 at 04:31 AM	libbyliberal : PBS BASHING? WHAT FRESH HELL IS THIS? When the pre-emptive strike on Iraq was being spun and promoted to an incredulous public by all the talking governmental and media heads, I recall an articulate, intelligent and dignified woman from some kind of peace organization as a guest on PBS .... was it a Newshour segment, or a Charlie Rose round table panel? This self-possessed woman quietly explained the colossal damage to Iraq’s INFRASTRUCTURE such a military campaign would begat. I think that was the first time I had heard the term “infrastructure.” I got the scope of it. She went on to paint detailed and informed images of the sustained nightmare of this collapsed infrastructure for the citizens of Iraq, our own troops and our country. Finally, she warned of the gargantuan task of re-building said infrastructure. I believed her. That serious, sane voice in 2003 has haunted me as her depiction has come to pass. If anyone in America has a right to say “I told you so,” she does. I often thought of writing the Newshour or Charlie Rose to see if they recalled that particular segment and could rerun it. MY POINT BEING.... THAT VOICE OF SANITY AND INSIGHT WAS ON PBS!!! I am late on reading and commenting on the Times article. I skimmed it and my jaw dropped. Why yes. With all that is wrong with the world at the moment, our collective trip to hell in the proverbial hand-basket, this NYT writer chooses to ATTACK PBS? Charles McGrath, how dare you? But as Rachel Maddow says, in this ethical freakshow of a universe... there you are. Have you ever seen the movie of Fahrenheit 451? PBS is like the bastion for the “book people.” Bradbury envisioned them as the hope of civilization. The seekers of the truth and of expansion of body, mind and spirit. Those on the vanguard. Those who are disenfranchised and sabotaged by the narrow, smug focus of the media mouthpieces and governmental demigods. How stifling it would be without a PBS or CSpan. To only have access to most of corporate mainstream media’s kool-aid night after night. The rants of the ego-driven, short sighted, opportunistic and glib. These pundits using their incredibly potent voices to signal their vast audience what to think and feel. No critical thinking required. In our reality show type-titillated culture (or anti-culture) these commentators are becoming more and more reckless and destructive. Eroding our identities and our vitality as proactive and thinking citizens of the world home. I now eagerly seek out CSpan and PBS to keep me grounded. To acquire some perspective. To be reassured there are thoughtful and intelligent people in this world. Asserting truth to me, my fellow enlightened (and desirous of being enlightened) viewers ... and also, importantly, asserting TRUTH TO POWER! Perhaps the vast majority of the American tv viewership want to enjoy gossip about class, glamour, the sexiness of wealth and power. They prefer watching Paris, Brittany, Simon Cowell. Or they prefer listening to strident-voiced political commentators using the histrionic, black and white language of gamesmanship. Stirring it up for the audience and themselves. Clever, outrageous, bombastic. Suppliers of short-term titillation. This country is fighting for its immortal soul. And most of the media is missing the battle. So are you, Mr. McGrath. Your attack I consider “friendly fire.” Give me Jim, Ray, Gwen, Judy, Margaret, Mark and the rest of the team. Give me Charlie R. Give me Bill Moyers. Give me Ken Burns. Give me Frontline. And give me Judy Dench as Jean Pargetter. Patricia Rutledge as Hyacinth Bucket (pronounced, “Bouquet” to you, Mr. McGrath). Ever think that hers is such a respected and sought out show because of her satiric GENIUS, and not from tiresome scheduling for a boring (in your eyes) viewing audience. Give me Helen Mirren as Jane Tennyson. Give me Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy. (Please, please give me Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy???) Give me Rupert Everett as the wonderful new Sherlock Holmes. Aw, too many to list, of course. Just give me great literature. Give me great drama. Give me great music. Give me great comedy. And why are you knocking Jane Austen? Will your next column be anti-Shakespeare? Your presumptuous discounting of quality, done-its-homework, educational commentary, and brilliantly prepared and beloved cultural programming is even more ridiculous than it is insulting. PBS deserved some kudos and you, Mr. McGrath, were a catalyst in inspiring them. But I hope your toxic message does not make PBS more vulnerable to the kool-aid makers and its drinkers out there. For the sake of my very soul, leave PBS alone!

Posted: 02/29/08 at 12:49 AM	David &Gienia : don't let them take you down we only get a hour here in Australia. We try very hard not miss it: that is Jim Lehrers hour balanced informative one of the best.

Posted: 02/29/08 at 12:27 AM	Lois Adams : As long as can be remembered, even with O'Neil, The News Hour has been a ritual with our family. It is by far the most outstanding broadcast of its kind and the idea that it is obsolete or irrelevant is obsurd. Its importance is shared by four adult children and is part of each of their family's evening with their kids. The contents of the program is outstanding and is much more than "just a news program". Those are a dime a dozen. We contribute to the station locally and inthe SF area primarily to assure that we can have The News Hour, Nova, and Bill Moyers. Without those three, this family would be devastated.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 11:30 PM	Omid : PBS is a gift that keeps on giving, the complete opposite of The New York Times.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 09:56 PM	Richard & Lorena : Sorry for being way-late. we're not avid podsters. But we are so very grateful to PBS. It is TV we believe in. The NewsHour tells us honestly the real news and the real debate going on. We could go on just this week with shows we watched on PBS that educated us and reeducated us to our expected level of happiness. Thanks for being there and Let Us at the guys who would dare say Public TV ain't relevant.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 09:23 PM	WOLFGANG MOLLER : Like my blood PBS is indispensible to intelligent life and my body. It is the oxygen which feeds my brain. It is the food which gives my body life. Is therenything more important ? Wolfgag Moller

Posted: 02/28/08 at 07:46 PM	Pursang : Seems the New York Times walks in lockstep with other entity's like Faux News which is just a "little" slanted in so far as "Fair and balanced". If I want to view the news it's gonna be The News Hour hands down.Very neutral in their reporting. I appreciate that.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 05:44 PM	Peter Kahn : My comment here is restricted to the issue of the decline in the PBS audience. I have not had access to the discussion, so my comment may be repeating what others have already said. Twenty years ago, PBS, as well as the other major national networks had few competitors. That has changed dramatically, so that now, there are hundreds of nationally available TV outlets, certainly a few dozen of which provide some programming that is competitive with what is presented by PBS. For statistical reasons, one would expect a spreading out of audience distribution. Further, although the national viewing audience has probably grown in the last twenty years, it is unlikely to have grown at nearly the rate of proliferation of the new stations. Thus, again for statistical reasons, one would expect an overall decrease in the market share per station or per network. Indeed, as far as I have been able to learn, all the major networks have experienced a decrease in audience. What would be interesting would be to compare the decrease of the PBS audience with those of the other national networks. One clue as to the possible result is given by the fact that the NPR audience has increased. This could indicate that the PBS audience decline is relatively smaller when compared with the decline of audience o other networks. Incidentally, the fact that NPR audiences have increased while PBS audiences have decreased can also be explained by the above observations. NPR uses FM broadcasting, which by its nature is essentially local and not amenable to rapid or great proliferation. Each town has its few FM stations (cities have many, of course), but the number has not grown in the same way that TV stations have...at least this is my conjecture. So, NPR has not had to face a vastly larger group of competitors. My guess is that the increase in NPR audience indicates that that portion of our citizenry interested in what public broadcasting has to offer is alive and well. and, on the TV side of things, is resisting the leveling out trend in the medium rather better than the commercial networks. What can or should be done to improve the PBS product and really turn things around? Well, I have ideas about that too. But that's a more complicated story.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 05:05 PM	Lucille Alan : We never miss the News Hour.It is irreplaceable. The news is presented thoughtfully, intelligently and clearly by excellent anchors. We record it every night for the times when we get home late.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 04:20 PM	Lulu : I am 77 years old. I do not have cable or satellite, just very good antenna reception from three different stations. I seriously doubt that I would bother to have a televeision set if it were not for PBS.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 03:57 PM	janet : To Whom it may concern, I am a 77 year old who has been watching,since its beginning[PBS},it with my grandchildren and my own children. I watch every night that I am home.I know that many of the programs have had a good infuence on the sudents that I taught in my twenty years of teaching children. You can see some of the influence the programs have had when you go into the homes and see the books games,and dolls that are there. I watch many of the news and drama progams and enjoy them for three reason: first they are entertaining, present more than one side of the issue and I do not have to change station when the many ads come on the other outfits.Please do not even consider leaving us in the dark of the many other stations that are left. Thanking you

Posted: 02/28/08 at 01:43 PM	Ray See : Given the apparent collapse of the New York Times pursuit of quality journalism insofar as how the McCain story was written, it is even more obvious to me that we need more News Hour, Charlie Rose, and other fine programs if we are to remain informed. While I do not like everything that appears on PBS, I understand that this is truly the American TV network and all Americans do not agree with me on all subjects. Good. Finally, I would have the federal government triple or quadruple the PBS budget so we can be rid of corporate sponsors.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 01:40 PM	Karen M. Kohlmann : I watch PBS nightly. I especially enjoy Jim Leher and the newshour. We would be lost without it! It is by far the best thing on T.V.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 01:22 PM	Nana : Nana: How could someone question the relevancy of PBS where informative and intersting programs such as Frontline, American Masters, Nova, Now, Bill Moyers Journal, Great Performances, NewsHour, Washington Week, and the best children programs are only found on PBS, and no where else. I believe supporting PBS is one of the best use of our tax money and this support, in fact should be increased.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 11:21 AM	Helley : For the writer of the NYT to say that PBS adds a 'note of grace' to our viewing is like saying that clothing adds to personal modesty. How ridiculous to even question the value of programs that make TV viewing tolerable. The programs on Frontline, American Masters, Nova, Now, Bill Moyers Journal, Great Performances, NewsHour, Washington Week, not to mention Sesame Street, Barney, etc. are ones that we can find nowhere else on commercial TV. For this writer to question the use of tax money being spent on PBS, when many of us believe it is one of the best use of our taxes, is ludicrous.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 09:02 AM	Larry Lunt : PBS is definitely necessary, especially the Lehrer news hour. It is the only in-depth analysis of the issue of our times. By comparison, the network stations news shows are more focused on entertainment rather than news.

Posted: 02/28/08 at 01:44 AM	Christopher Armstrong-Stevenson : Not just "relvant" but essential. I live in Portland, Oregon and am only able to receive two stations, the NBC affiliate and PBS. NBC's chief client is the local Basketball team...the losers called the TrailBlazers. News always give way to a game. Obviously much more important to the station's owners. I've lived on PBS for many years...back when the NewsHour was still called "McNeill-Lehrer". I live for the Friday evening news wrap, although I'm disappointed at how Foreign Exchange has deteiorated inder the new presenter. I also dislike the addition of Judy Woodruff...that left-over from commercial TV where she couldn't hold down a job. Her "interview" with Hillary Clinton on Wednesday, Februay 27 was travesty of "news-interview"...she was unable or unwilling to press Clinton on any of her weak responses. Give her job to someone more capable. And why does Woodruff have a continual scowl or frown...is it because of those "bangs" she has to continuously swish away while on camera? Take her off the show, please. Anyway, yes, PBS is a "MUST" in my life...not only because of the news but for many other programs also. The only thing I regret is the ghastly, constantly repeated shows saved up for Pledge Months every quarter. Why do self-help and vintage performers (and some are REALLY vintage!) get trotted out in an attempt to get us to open our wallets? The regular shows should do that...because of their intrinsic value and worth.I try to get out of the house, or just switch off, when they all come around. I hope to see PBS continue for my lifetime...after which I hope to help ensure its continuation from wherever I "end-up". Hopefully "Above" not "Under" .

Posted: 02/28/08 at 01:39 AM	Pudding please : ************************************************** The Proof is in the pudding: The Nightly Business Report can run circles around The Newshour. NBR is more technologically relevant and more likely to catch fire with the mobile internet devices than the The Newshour. Why do you pay for an inefficient, unimaginative, close-boxed production staff in the Newshour? ***************************************************

Posted: 02/28/08 at 01:00 AM	sk8asd123 : I first discovered the Newshour by accident because it was the clearest station on my tv. After watching Newshour for the first time, I knew right then that it was my new favorite tv news program. Even my experimentation w/ cable didn't change my mind. It's the in-depth news stories that help strike up conversations with strangers or the thought-provoking questions that you spend days mulling over - I love it all.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 11:04 PM	Rebekah E. Adams : I strongly support the continuaton of the News Hour and it is the only station that my husband and I watch for the news. The News Hour provides a provacative, insightful account of the news and is one of the few programs that does so. We no longer watch CNN as that channel has become too "entertainment" oriented, and no longer provides an objective presentation of the news. In today's climate of appealing to the largest audiences possible, programs like the News Hour are even more important! Keeping the News Hour is critical if we are to maintain an indepth understanding of world events. The staff of the News Hour does an excellent job of presenting the issues in a knowledgeable, understandable manner. Thank you!

Posted: 02/27/08 at 09:01 PM	B. Matthew, Charlottesville, Va : Dear Madam or Sir: I am writing to support PBS television. My nights would be incomplete without the Jim Lehrer News Hour. Moreover, I recall my ill-placed cynicism (similarly expressed by the NY Times article) when I was an undergraduate. I scoffed at the father of one of my colleagues, also a Professor in our Department, who watched the then McNeill-Lehrer News Hour each evening. Now, fifteen years later, I find myself serving the same role. So, the same, with other programs. As my children, nephews, nieces, God-daughters and others mature to television observing age, I find myself looking for, and finding ONLY on PBS-TV, shows worthy of their viewing. I disagree with the NY times author who wrote "Indeed, public broadcasting came into being out of collective despair over what had become of the airwaves. Cable has changed all that." Cable has not served as an interchangeable replacement. The shows I survey on Discovery or the History channel are dumbed down, sexed up versions of what science and history truly are. The viewer is duped into a shallower version of what PBS offers, and the viewer (I among them) feel cheated. That is why I return to PBS. Long live NOVA, Ken Burns' specials, and, yes, Mr. Lehrer on the Jim Lehrer news hour. For those not concerned enough (or bright enough) to enjoy the phenomenal coverage the PBS-TV programs provide, week in and week out, may they get out of the way of the more mature, learned, patient viewers, and let us lead the country.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 08:54 PM	C.Lou : I have never subscribed to cable because the only media I enjoy are PBS, especially Lehrer, NPR, and Netflix. In hotel rooms, when I catch cable, I wonder why folks pay for it.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 08:37 PM	Pamela Koslyn : Yes, of course we still need PBS. Now more than ever, as the celebrity culture saturates our media like it never has before. Unfortunately the networks that get free license from we, the people, to use the airwaves, don't take their responsibility to serve the public very seriously. Or perhaps, sadly - they give us what we seem to want, and what gets them lots of eyeballs and quick money - Paris, Natalee Holloway, Britney -- instead of the quality news we truly need --in depth political and sociological stories, international concerns, etc. For all who champion education for kids, why isn't the same stress put on education for adults? We're all much better off with PBS and we shouldn't even think of de-funding it.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 08:33 PM	Sarah O. : If the NewsHour or Charlie Rose went away that would be a tragedy indeed. The NewsHour is head and shoulders above any of the other news programs both on cable and network television. I would be distressed to have to get my news from CNN. On the bright side, it is good to hear that NPR has increased its listener base.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 08:13 PM	Lin Rimple : I just found out the Jim Leher and Robert MacNeil are both members of the Council of Foreign Affairs. DANG!! For 20 years I have been a supported of PBS and thankful for it's unbiased reports. Now it is clear that PBS has been bought out just like every other station. I feel betrayed and lied to, yet I shouldn't be all that surprized. I will still watch some of the programing, because like most educated and concerned Americans, I don't need the mindless shows and commercials attacking my thoughts. However, Jim and Robert, I've lost all respect for both of you. America was founded on freedom, sovereignty, and peace. The Council of Foreign Affairs and the Trilateral Commission are founded on Tyranny, bad company. Just as a side note, I do smile, knowing my favorite anchor, the late Peter Jennings, didn't sell out. May God rest his soul. Shame on you PBS, Shame on you. Lin Rimple, a free woman.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 07:47 PM	Cameo Joe : PBS is the most dependable source of reliable unbiased news. Their only self-interest is to continue to function as they do. No other media source could provide the same caliber of objectivity, or quality information and entertainment. Most commercial television and radio is noise and advertising. Without access to PBS media I would be lost.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 07:14 PM	mfost : I am a young and idealistic adult and I find that the News Hour offers the most unfiltered, unbiased, and unencumbered news on the market. The reporters are thorough, the stories are exciting, and the commentators are necessary. This news brings the world to my doorstep. Thank you and please keep it up.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 06:36 PM	baby jane : Duh Mr. McGrath .... cable requires a paid subscription and if like where I live that is paid to a monopolistic cable service provider company for non-competitive high prices. I guess Mr. McGrath has not considered the millions of people who can not afford to subscribe to those select channels or the people like myself who have very limited funds available, if any. Consider a child growing up in a household where cable is not affordable or subscribed to. The PBS children's shows and other creative and or educational shows would be their ONLY resource of quality programming outside of the plethora of sex and violence programming prevalent on network televion. Yes, occasionally there is a quality program or movie shown on network; from my experience it is the exception rather than the usual. The day to day effect is large amounts of sex, violence, game shows etc. I am speaking from personal experience here. I have recently been without cable service for many months. perhaps even a year or two. The effect is brain deadening, and worse for me as an adult. I am mortified to consider the effect on children. I have in the past week or so been able to re-connect cable service. However I would not be able to afford to do so on my income which for now is a monthly Social Security check. I am planning to pay the cable bill with some of the funds I now have available from the recent sale of a 2007 customized Chevy Tahoe that I won last July in an online sweepstakes. Otherwise I would not have the cable service. The odds were 50,000 to 1 in winning so having it on is a rarity here. Does Mr McGrath think these alternative programs flow int people's homes like tap water? Is he on the New York Times payroll as a journalist or columist? If so he seems to be lacking in understanding experiences outside his own realm of life. Perhaps I should be on the New York Times payroll instead as I understand that there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamed of in many peoples philosophy. I chose a path of following my inspiration as a creative original non commercial visual artist many years ago ... Have had several jobs over the past 3 decades or so, such as library assistant at a University Law School, "governess", nanny, babysitter and many others. During those times I sometimes had cable service, sometimes did not. PBS was about all I could watch when cable not on. Cable service is a luxury, Mr. McGrath that many people can not afford. Excuse me, but Duh ... It is in the public interest that quality programming is available to all citizens and ridiculous to think that this can be left to monopolistic companies charging high prices.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 06:25 PM	Josef Tucker : TV without PBS (and Radio without NPR) would be a bleak broadcasting landscape indeed. I cannot image surviving a day stuck in a world without our collective refuge from the deluge of ads and hype that commercial stations blind us with. The thoughtful and thorough programming on PBS and NPR, news and entertainment alike, is a national treasure and should be defended as such.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 05:17 PM	PHILIP ZIMMERMAN : MY WIFE AND I WATCH THE NEWSHOUR EVERY DAY. WE HAVE A CABLE SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS US TO REACH THE NEWS ON ANY NETWORK OR THE THREE LEADING ALL DAY NEWS STATIONS BUT PREFER THE NEWS IN MORE DEPTH AND PRESENTED IN AN UNBIASED WAY. WE FIND THE CORRESPONDENTS AND MARK SHIELDS AND DAVID BROOD ON THE NEWSHOUR TO BE PROFESSIONAL AND UNDERSTANDABLE. WE WOULD BE VERY UNHAPPY IF THE NEWSHOUR LEFT PBS.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 04:51 PM	Del J. : News Hour is my favorite news.. Never miss it. The big picture segments are the very best I've seen anywhere. I specially like Brooks and Shields on Fridays or anytime I know they are on. The reporters I would name them but I may miss one, Ifle. Warner. Brown and Suarez they are the best in their field. I feel like we're all first cousins or something. just family. I like that you cover the subject fair and not bias not just 30 second spot to imply one thing or another. Thank you for all you do and do so well.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 03:26 PM	ruth : Broadcast and commercial TV ignores the unpopular demographic (over 49). The government should support programs catering to this age group. In a democratic society all groups should be served. This is why PBS is so critical.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 03:15 PM	maria bittinger : News Hours gives a unique and refreshing look at what is happening in the USA and the world. There is true journalism on display and viewers are rewarded with an unbiased report and one that does not pander to the scandal du jour. PBS offers programing no one else does in the arts, education, science, commentary and history. The cable channels that at one time carried good cultural fare have turned to reality TV and no where else do you get an in depth look at current issues facing us.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 03:01 PM	Judy Harrison : PBS is still necessary in today's United States- perhaps more than ever. An elementary requisite of democracy is an educated electorate. As ordinary citizens are bedraggled by the demands of family and career, radio, television and the Internet are the main sources of news for most. Many of these venues have been corrupted by a particular political point of view or by a need to elevate profit over substance. PBS is my available, reliable, and truthful source of information. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

Posted: 02/27/08 at 03:00 PM	CHARLES F GOTTER : Is PBS necessary? How about NPR? It is what the national networks can only dream of and we watch & listen. PBS gives you another view without dollar signs attached. I also listen to Talk Radio for their views and often agree but Talk Radio would take away the Federal CPB pittance & give the savings to George Soros and Bill Gates as tax rebates. I like the comment of having a check off box on our taxes. I might actually check one!

Posted: 02/27/08 at 02:56 PM	Marianne Lane : PBS is Vital if one desires QUALITY programs. My favorites are Jim Lehrer News, Masterpiece Theatre, Cahrlie Rose, Brit.News, Musical specials etc etc and I faithfully financially supportPBS.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 12:40 PM	Robert E Crysler : In my view PBS and CSPAN are national media treasures. Any sincere debate as to their value is welcome as it is probable to brighten the already and well earned favorable light. Keep up the great work all. Robert E. Crysler

Posted: 02/27/08 at 11:31 AM	Judith Abate : The only news program on TV that isn't biased and makes an attempt to give information on both sides of issues is the Newshour. Also it provides background information and not sound bites about whatever topic is being discussed. Not to mention the quality artistic programs like Masterpiece. I often watch them several times because the network stations and other cable stations are filled with mediocre programing and reruns of same. Thank God for PBS.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 11:05 AM	Donald B. Christie : If you are still counting, I'd like to add my voice to those supporting Jim Lehrer and the Newshour. There is no other newscast on TV that compares to the depth and breadth of its reporting. The time of day when it is broadcast in perfect. I am in the older generation, but for those younger who don't watch it, that is their loss.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 10:26 AM	Jim Barker : My wife and I cannot imagine not having The News Hour and other PBS programs, including those on NPR. We start the day with Morning Edition, then All Things Considered, and finally The News Hour. Frontline and The American Experience frequemtly entertain and offer insights which leave lasting impressions. On Friday, we put aside other engagements to be able to watch Washington Week in Review and the rest of the programs broadcast that evening via WETA in Washington. We can only repeat what so many have already said, that the professionalism and in-depth reporting provides us with invaluable input as we try to understand issues. It is so good that The News Hour assembles experts who can calmly and thoughtfully present their opposing view points. I have often thought that those representing the adminstration's position on The News Hour were far superior to the president himself. He detracts from those in his administration who can express a more reasoned position than his simplistic, and frequently wishful, statements. Finally, we especially look forward to the discussions between David Brooks and Mark Shields and the occasional analysis by the panel of historians. It is essential that PBS and NPR should continue to receive federal support to augment contributions from its audience. Thanks to all that work so hard to continue the good work that you do. Jim & Liz Barker

Posted: 02/27/08 at 09:55 AM	Steve Helmer : I was going to leave it to the hundreds of others who have written supporting PBS. But then this week, I've been reminded of just how much it means to me. The NewsHour, Charlie Rose, and Tavis are a regular part of my day (the last two recorded and seen tomorrow). They are ALWAYS solid, timely, insightful--keep me in touch with my world. And now and then, there is a single program that is just luminous, draws you so close into the realities of an issue or news story, is so rich, and intimate and tellling. The Charlie Rose segment on Pakistan and France this week was this way. Breath taking. Vital. Could I do without this? Could I get it anywhere else. NO and NO! Is this "musty" and dated. Come on! This week I also bumped into a "sometimes" that was so fascinating it hooked me again--American Experience. The double feature Buffalo Bill and Annie Oakley were superb Americana. Again, I'd never see it anywhere else. (Ditto the recent "Mormons"). Frontline, is another favourite, NOW, Bill Moyers Journal. PLUS all the world class kids programing (which I acutally do sample now and then) and is a huge investment in our kids and our future. Mystery and Masterpiece have been long time favorites (a little less time for them of late). Just where do I start counting the "tired," musty, "Ho, Hum. I can do without this" stuff. I'm not sure where the NYTimes is lookng. PBS is alive, vital to my understanding my world, relvant, fresh, "today. Things would be vastly different without it, vastly worse, poorer, less informed. God forbid we let it be lost. May we have the wisdom and courage to choose quality and deeply valuable programming over "the alternative".

Posted: 02/27/08 at 08:52 AM	Tim McNeely : The idea of living without the objective and in depth look at the world I get from PBS is scary. NBR, News Hour, Now, Gwens show, Red Green, to name a few. I love it. We would all be the losers if the News Hour was to to hatcheted.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 03:18 AM	Guy : yes no doubts about it. terrific US news ,great team ,time to plan for the future team not to end it.

Posted: 02/27/08 at 02:04 AM	S.D. Forte : Dear PBS, Yes, PBS is very necessary, especially to those of us who cannot afford cable/satellite TV. I particularly value Jim Lehrer's Newshour, Frontline, Nova, American Experience, Washington Week, Bill Moyers' Journal, and the documentaries of Ken Burns. These programs have been an education for me beyond anything I ever got out of school (1 thru 12 + other , specialized classes.). They should be required as homework assignments. (See, history's not as boring as you thought! Isn't it amazing what people have gone through to produce this relatively safe, secure, and productive country we live in, with apologies to Chiefs Joseph, Sitting Bull, and all your people, who lost so much! And to Harriet Tubman, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver who gave so much to this country in spite of the hard, sad lives led by those from whom they came. And, of course, apologies to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who gave his all that black people would finally be judged, "not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character!") And, finally, for the purposes of this message, thanks for "American Masters" and its homage to those people who excel at moving us emotionally, or who through their mastery of other arts and sciences, have moved us forward. There ought to be an American Masters program devoted to those whose vision keeps the ship of PBS on its course of excellence in telecasting. Thank you, PBS! May your "enterprise" continue to "boldly go where no one has gone, before!" Sincerely, Dave Forte Wetumpka, AL

Posted: 02/26/08 at 09:03 PM	Elizabeth Swaim : Life without PBS would be so dull. They have the original voice in reporting, and besides that they have so many great shows. How can I describe something that is apart of my life? Please, oh please keep PBS. Thank you, E.O.Swaim

Posted: 02/26/08 at 08:26 PM	Richard : Say it ain't so Jim. The newshour is the best, say again, the best TV current affairs program on television. For information on the American condition nothing beats it.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 08:14 PM	Joann : I can't imagine television without PBS. Even though I have the ability to view hundreds of channels, PBS is in my top five. I can not tolerate the "regular" news on CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC, or CNN. On the rare occasions when I happen to catch a glimpse of one those stations with the remote, I wonder if I am viewing a real journalist or an actor? Does anyone watch commercial TV? Why bother?

Posted: 02/26/08 at 07:44 PM	R H Rice : While reading the NYT article, I reflected on the PBS programs I like best: News Hour, Now, Bill Moyers Journal, Frontline, Masterpiece, Mystery, Washingtom Week, McGloughlin Group, etc. I am happy to make an annual contribution to help such programs continue. Contrary to the NYT article, I do not find the equivalent or much else worth watching on cable. As a consequence, and despite trying to find worthwhile programs on it on numerous occasions, I do not subscribe to cable. With few exceptions, the news programs not on PBS are drivel or slanted. One point raised in the article that seems emphasizing is the desirability of increasing federal finding for PBS instead of continuing the decline. Yes, indeed, we need PBS!

Posted: 02/26/08 at 07:43 PM	Peter HEWITT : I live in Perth in the state of Western Australia. Perth has the distinction of being one of the remotest State Capitals in the world. As such its denizins must lay out big dollars to travel, even to it's closest neigbour (state capital). As you can imagine people of Perth rely enormousely on the reciept of information via the TV/Internet for up to date, in depth and comprehensive information. I have relied on The News Hour for this information for a very long time - 10+ years. In all that time I have never been let down. I find the service provided, even when I disagree with slant on many issues' is fair, unbiased, challenging whilst remaining calm and well presented. I wish PBS and The News Hour success in their efforts to show their detractors that Public Broadcasting is necessary, important and of great value in the world in which we now live. PeterH...

Posted: 02/26/08 at 05:52 PM	Siobhan : I'm glad to join in the chorus of support for the News Hour. (I mostly listen to the program on the radio, as I don't have a TV.) I think the show puts other news programs to shame by covering salient topics in depth. The reporters are professional & exhibit a sense of humor without coming across as the fakes that one hears all the time on popular talk radio shows. Mr. Lehrer, I enjoy you SO much! Thank you all for a wonderful show. By the strong support you are getting from your viewers you KNOW that PBS is relevant. Don't ever leave us!

Posted: 02/26/08 at 05:33 PM	G.H. Lewis : Our friends of the NeoCon persuasion want to advance the perception that any news outlet who endeavors to be fair and/or unbiased (i.e., give both sides of an issue) is a tool of the Liberal Media and should be silenced. Should federal funding be withdrawn for PBS? No way! PBS clearly does its best to allow qualified pundits the airtime to offer different "sides" to controversial issues. NeoCons will continue to sound off. Let's continue to be respectful.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 04:34 PM	Abbie Stewart : I am a life-long viewer of KQED (I'm 64) and a member for years. I cannot imagine TV programming without PBS. Where to begin? The news: I've been viewing long enough to still call it The MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour and it's by far, the most thoughtful and unbiased news hour on, along with the BBC - containing actual discussion and examination of issues instead of pandering to emotions in five second spots. I trust their reporting and look forward to hearing the views of Shields and Brooks. I am put off and profoundly disappointed by ignorance of journalistc standards when so-called "news reporting" by some talking heads includes their own unnecessary, lame and subjective comments. Some ask questions of reporters so laden in tone as to dramatically reveal their bias and color the response. CNN and MSNBC are so loud in presentation and garish in tone, with the unnecessary and ever-present crawls as to Hollywoodize the news. The Arts: Masterpiece Theater. Need one say more? Nova, Frontline, Now, etc, etc. I agree with many of the contributors above, that the question the Times raised actually reflects more about the Times than the question itself. With their latest article on John McCain and now this, I have lost any respect I had for the Times and it will be hard to regain, if ever possible. The Times is very out-of-touch to be so ignorant of the critical ingredient PBS is in a successful democracy. But then, it's a big Corporation, isn't it? We need MORE PBS, not less!

Posted: 02/26/08 at 04:16 PM	Rochelle Cavalli : If PBS is not necessary, why do I still watch PBS 90% of my viewing time. I pay for cable and HBO and until recently I paid for Cinamax. Until I realized I never watch Cinamax- and dropped it. My husband and I would be lost without PBS it is the best thing on TV. The News Hour - the Sunday morning news shows, Bill Moyers, Frontline and Charlie Rose. Then we watch Antique Road Show, Nature, This Old House and the Norm Abrams shows, the cooking shows, and Mystery. It is most defenitely necessary. Rochelle Cavalli Please keep it on - we love it. Thank you

Posted: 02/26/08 at 04:08 PM	JeanK. : The NY Times article was ridiculous and I say this as a devoted NYT reader. First of all, PBS is free, cable is not. Even if it were not free, I would pay to get the NewsHour. It's the only program with a thorough, factual account of news on a daily basis. Cable does not offer an equivalent program. Other PBS programs without cable equals are NOW, Bill Moyer's Journal, Independent Lens, FrontLine, Masterpiece, and works by Ken Burns. Without these programs I would be very unhappy and that's why I support my local PBS station. The Times should find a reviewer with more common sense. Yes, public televion is necessary.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 03:52 PM	George Cook : Mr. McGrath’s Bias Revealed In responding to Mr. Charles McGrath’s Sunday New York Times article of February 17, 2007, questioning the relevancy PBS in today's electronic marketplace, I am reminded of the time Abraham Lincoln spoke to an audience of reformed drunkards, who were members of the Washington Temperance Union. On that occasion, Lincoln took the opportunity to explain why the “old-school” temperance movement had failed to garner widespread support, while the empathetic approach of the Washingtonians was succeeding. “[T]he thundering tones of anathema and denunciation,” Lincoln argued, “was not only unjust but impolitic. It simply worked better to reason with, coax, and convince people” of the merits of ones own exemplar behavior. 1/ Let us react to Mr. McGrath’s remarks in that light. There is much merit in his contrasting the competitive weaknesses of PBS programming against the strength of NPR, PRI, cable, internet, even DVD rentals and sales. For that matter, PBS is facing increasing competition from the digital inventories of our local public libraries. And, while expressing our outrage with Mr. McGrath’s conclusion – that PBS has lost its battle against the emergent competitiveness of “high-minded” alternatives, so much so that whatever residual federal subsidies are dispensed ought to go to NPR, where it would be better spent – we may feel a bit better by avenging our hurt feelings, we need to keep in mind that “harsh condemnation can no more pierce a man’s heart than a rye straw can penetrate the hard shell of a tortoise,” as Lincoln cautioned his reforming contemporaries. Yes, PBS is bleeding slowly in a protracted war-of-attrition. The threatening clouds of federal disenfranchisement hover transfixed on the near side of its planning horizon. Whatever the relief is received from year-to-year, it cannot be expected to remedy PBS’ systematic problems. Far more precious than federal funding – remember – is the lasting loyalty of its passionate patrons. Their engagement cannot be allowed to slowly and silently be siphoned away. The PBS cry of wolf, from season-to-season, dwindles away its members energizing emotions every bit as much as the gradual withering away of its cherished subsidies. Few among us would disagree that PBS’ seasonal pledging drives, have unintentionally become, what Mr. McGrath calls, “the fund-raising equivalent of water-boarding.” It is time to ask how can PBS survive with little to no federal financing, and how can we, its loyal members, be collectively brought into the process of bringing this transformation about? It is time to join the competition. The answer for which is total quality programming, measured in talent, technology and timing. In today’s electronic universe, where the viewing marketplace and its associated production and delivery technologies are fragmenting and converging at an accelerating pace all around us, the measure of success is not a network’s primetime lineup, but its ubiquitous reach. Its entire programming inventory needs to be easily reached by anyone, anytime, anywhere. As in the lottery, however, you cannot win, if you do not buy a ticket. Mr. McGrath is right, in so far as, PBS’s value proposition and respective business model -- at least the one that it presents to its membership and general public -- fails to adequately tap into its organically loyal customer base, which it has built up over decades. Without so doing, it cannot generate the excess cash flow and financial capital it needs desperately to creatively compete in the innovative landscape that surrounds it. From the view of its membership, PBS stations are living from day-to-day, from paycheck-to-paycheck, from hand-to-mouth. Being ignorant of the costs of production projects and overhead operations, I can only guess that their growth rates are rapidly outstripping traditional fund raising methodologies. Mr. McGrath’s article begs the question: does PBS have plans in place to double, even triple, its revenue stream and capital resources, before the drastic federal cuts seeming inevitable finally hit home? Should it not have such plans at the ready, including a time-line, not unlike that for the nation’s conversion to digital-TV format? A phased process that can get us there in incremental steps, successfully? Mr. McGrath is right, in so far as, it is getting a harder each year for upset “die-hard” viewers to rally to the glorious cause of the PBS tradition. How many times must we be called upon to browbeat Congress into restoring the public broadcasting budget? Considering PBS’s diminishing financial strength it seems, as if we need only miss the next cry of wolf and public broadcasting will suddenly cease to be, as we once knew it. Is that what is happening? NPR stations such as all-jazz, WBGO FM, 88.7, by example, are closer to their targeted audience and seem better prepared than that. I do not believe the “heretical” notion that glory days of public television are past recapturing, but a paradigm shift in raising funds is needed. A vision of change is required. One that alters the way PBS thinks of itself and its viewing audience, in the way it engages its membership in its internal processes, and in the way it packages, delivers and presents itself to the electronic universe that is around all of us. Mr. McGrath is right, in so far as, PBS has surrendered some of its high-cultural distinctiveness and has become marked by a measure of “mustiness,” by “trolling after ratings” and by taking on the elements of “just another” cable-TV channel, running “pop-knockoffs” like “America’s Ballroom Challenge“ and rerunning stale “sitcoms,” whose format can be seen every night of week on any other cable-TV channel, hour after hour. Indeed, nothing, absolutely nothing in the media compares to the “mustiness” that can be found across the wasteland known as traditional cable-TV. Mr. McGrath is right, in so far as, the distinctive, epic-scale projects that once anchored PBS have become too “few and far between.” One can only assume, this is so because traditional funding sources cannot keep pace with growing production costs. By definition, these epics are time-consuming, but that does not argue that they should not be produced in greater number, or that they will lose their attractiveness over time. If PBS is to be severely faulted in this regard, it is in the way it casually catalogs, stocks and prices these highly desirable properties. They are being horded them away in hardcopy, DVD form, at shopPBS.com, without any effort to aggressively market their consumption, as if they are too valuable to be moved. I do not believe it is too impertinent to suggest that this is an outmoded, and, thus, a relatively ineffectual means of harvesting the economic value of these organically, rich, revenue generating resources. They ought to be ubiquitously accessible via downloadable on-demand and pay-per-view, Internet and TV platform technologies. Mr. McGrath is right, in so far as, alternative, high-quality, high-end cultural, educational and scientific programming is run far more frequently on digital, fiber-optic, broadband TV network outlets, than they were in the recent past. As NPR faces competition from PRI (Public Radio International), PBS finds itself being challenged by the insurgent BBC programming, with its history, science and military special interest channels, as well as, daily and weekly series, covering news, information and entertainment. At the risk of miss-counting, my interactive, digital, broadband, fiber-optic, TV provider, offers four BBC-brand, six science, four military, four history and four home improvement networks, along with a variety of wealth, health, travel and gourmet cooking interest-based channels, and more news and sports channels than is worth listing. With the exceptions of the “NewsHour” on PBS and “Sunday Morning” on CBS, I rarely view the programs I watch at their regularly scheduled times. Since recently switching interactive, digital, broadband, fiber-optic, TV providers, I have learned to manipulate the whole-house, digital video recording (DVR) feature that comes with my service. This allows me to search for, save, playback and enjoy dozens of recorded programs, at my convenience. I am regularly recording entire series run on the History Channel (a President’s Day marathon series, 1789-Present), the Science Channel (Carl Sagan’s Cosmos), TCM (31 Days of Oscar), and multiple PBS programs, across multiple PBS stations. I do not know if I would watch commercial TV at all, if it were not for this feature, which allows me to cut through the clutter that characterizes traditional cable TV. As channel capacity has increased over traditional cable-TV, it has paradoxically become so utterly barren, void of original and commendable content. Repulsed by the decadence and ever increasing expense of traditional cable-TV, I have taken to viewing lectures given by college professors, covering political and cultural history, literature, art, music, mathematics, science and religious appreciation. Known as the Great Courses, these lectures are produced in DVD format by the Teaching Company and are made available through my public library. So, I refuse to subscribe to, and no longer pay for, all the so-called premium channels. It is worth noting that digital, interactive, broadband distribution it is itself enjoying a rebirth in competition. Verizon’s FiOS Service is available in parts of the NY-NJ-CT viewing area now. So, let us hope that the head-to-head confrontation among interactive, broadband disturbers, so long awaited will, at last, herald a new era in high-end, educational, cultural and scientific programming: one in which PBS is favorably granted state-of-the art, interactive access arrangements, commensurate with its financial needs, not unlike when PBS was created. This time born out of our “collective despair” over what traditional cable-TV has not done to enrich our culture. Media critics commonly agree that PBS has produced some of our nation’s greatest treasures in electronic imagery and oral history, and it still enjoys unprecedented levels of good will, which, if served and leveraged appropriately, should produce economic self-sufficiency sufficient to generate high-minded, high-quality, epic productions of global proportions. These achievements remain a source of great cultural pride. Given the cultural gulf that exists between our nation and other parts of the world, I would not hesitate to go international and translate volumes of existing content into Arabic, Chinese, etc. Indeed, I would start with Ric Burns “New York: A Documentary Film” and other presentations from the “American Experience” series, along with excerpts of the “NewHours,” “Frontline” and more. With a transformational business model, our beloved PBS (dot.org) can reclaim its creative leadership among the commercial “dot.com” giants of our electronic universe, and it can hold a position of leadership in innovation and creativity for decades to come. I close with a final comment about Mr. McGrath’s article, for all his useful observations, he is terribly wrong. Inherent in his reasoning is a singular bias that is neither justified, nor defensible. This is his bias against news, informational and public service programs that have succeeded over several decades, which have consciously avoided gratuitous changes in style and format, and, whose anchors have become the senior statesmen of the news business. Before I address myself to the label of “mustiness” that Mr. McGrath hangs on Jim Lehrer and the “NewsHour,” let us point to other programs in the commercial sphere, which by definition, ought to be thrown into the same bucket, namely: ABC’s “Good Morning America,” NBC’s “Today Show” and “Sunday Morning” on CBS. These shows are the staple of American Life. Their anchors have time and again formed a visceral bond with their audience built over years of familiarly, making them the most sought after personalities in the news industry. Even so, their base of support does not approach the links of loyalty engendered by Jim Lehrer with his audience over the years of his career with PBS. Consider for a moment, how “This Week” with George Stephanpoulos and the “NewsHour” with Jim Lehrer sign-off their respective broadcasts. In memoriam, George lists of names of the dead killed in Iraq and Afghanistan in power point format. By contrast, Jim Lehrer dedicates the entire screen to eulogize each soldier, sailor and marine, who died in combat. You can look deeply into their eyes, you can see where they were from, you can see how young and full of life they were, and in your heart you know that they have given the last full measure of human devotion to our country. It is my ritual every weeknight to try to stand in front of my TV, alone, in silence, and I hold my salute for each of them. Never have I been so moved by any show on any network. Try to look into their eyes. That is relevant, reality-TV of the highest order. 1/ You can read more about this episode in Abraham Lincoln’s life on pages 88 and 89 of "Lincoln’s Melancholy," by Joshua Wolf Shenk, published by Houghton Mifflin Company, in 2005

Posted: 02/26/08 at 03:40 PM	Malcolm Neill : I definiely think the news hour is relavant. It is so much better than the soundbites of the major networks and the yelling a screaming of cable news. I'm a fairly consevative person and used to think that the News Hour had a liberal slant but I was wrong. I enjoy the calm and informative discussions on issues and feel I learn alot about both sides of the topic. I love Friday's and many times I crack open a beer and listen to the views of Sheilds and Brooks. Great entertainment. Brooks is great and I learn alot from Sheild but he needs to be a little more concise so Brooks can talk more. More people should watch the News Hour so they can be better informed.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 03:17 PM	Paula Corbell : My family watches the News Hour together and we have for many years. It is the only news show on TV which provides opinions and experts on the same subject. We also listen to All Things Consideed on NPR which we consider like your show, only without the screen. I think you provide an excellent service without "messing around" with the story. I wish you could have Mr. McGrath on for a one on one interview with Mr. Lehrer. Or get Mr. McNeil on too which would be just terrific. Thanks.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 02:56 PM	Mike and Barb Russell : We have been watching the NewsHour since it was a 1/2 program. It is, without exception, the best news show on television. It is balanced, objective and civil. It is not designed to produce the greatest ratings. Instead, it produces the best insight into issues that shape our lives. We have the greatest respect for PBS and will continue to support the excellent programs it offers.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 01:31 PM	Hugh Owens : It is a sad commentary on the Times that it should feel the need to posit such a fatuous question considering how far that once great newspaper has fallen. I would turn the comment around and ask "Is the NY Times till necessary?" Heads need to roll at that paper. Their level of competence is on a race to the bottom on a par with the microcphalics in the bush administration. My only television news sources are the BBC and PBS. The other network talking bobbleheads are not worth the bandwidth they're printed on. Could PBS do better? You bet. They could start by reporting the consequence of events, more editorializing, not less. Many of the PBS(not all thank heavens) commentaors when they get an answer to their questions just acccept what plops out of someones mouth and move on to the next question("We are liberating Iraq

Posted: 02/26/08 at 11:58 AM	Bob Morrison : I love the PBS Newshour, always well done and truly "fair and balanced," not just the slogan. We also watch Antique Road Show and many of the excellent programs produced by and for UNC-TV, public broadcasting in North Carolina. As for cable, not everyone has it, and some who do have only basic cable. For many reasons, three cheers for public TV, which we support.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 09:28 AM	Phil : PBS has always tip-toed around the truth and has always been a home for nice politics. PBS's biggest sponsor = government funding. Don't tick off the people who fund your programming.

Posted: 02/26/08 at 02:41 AM	Edward R. (Ed) Brandt, Ph.D. : Jim Lehrer's News Hour and BBC World News are the ONLY things on TV which we view regularly. We are lost on weekends when neither one is available. I do think it was poor judgment to have a former NYT reporter defending its indefensible smear on John McCain, who has more integrity than the Times has ever had. What the Times needed was a criminal attorney. By the way, I haven't voted for any major party presidential nominee since the end of the Cold War. It is highly improbable that I ever will before I die. PBS as a whole is not as good as the programs I mentioned. Its documentary about a highly respected Senator during the phony "ERA" era was decidedly biased by omitting his opposition to the issue du jour.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 11:43 PM	Bob Mill : The News Hour remains absolutely essential. Tonight's program afforded Sens. Joe Biden and Chuck Hagel the opportunity to share their expert views of the tensions and problems in the Broad Mideast. The broadcast media other than PBS focus far too narrowly upon Iraq and give us only the most limited understanding of the rest of the Mideast.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 11:04 PM	Vernon Van Rooy : Are they out of their minds...PBS television is the only thing I watch...I don't subscribe to cable...$700.00 is too much for nthing....I cannot get the information anywhere else like PBS TV....I wish it were even more like BBC...seen some documentaries like The Trap...that was great...and where would we get great shows like Frontline...

Posted: 02/25/08 at 10:57 PM	Ryan : We need the news hour now more than ever. The newshour is the only unbiased forum for high level analysis of the news. I don't know how I would take positions on american politics otherwise. If I want to hear Wolf Blitzer tell me about about hotel fires in Tasmania, I know where to go.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 10:35 PM	alexander buchwald : We watch The News Hour regularly. Unlike the commercial stations they cover important national and international news and do so in an unbiased and informative manner. This is news for adults.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 09:53 PM	julie : It is hard to imagine why anyone would question the relevance of PBS. The Newshour, Bill Moyers, Washington Week in Review, Now - all help me form the opinions that I hold. On the rare occasions when we come across screaming commentators on other channels, I am amazed that there is an audience that actually likes that. Yes, I am over 60, but if PBS is irrelevant, I must be too.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 09:36 PM	William : We live in the farm land of western New York. NPR Morning Addition, NPR All Things Considered and the PBS News Hour are all important. Why is it necessary to choose between three different but very essential public news programs that are not controlled by big corporations, commercial sponsors or squeezed by a less than truthful administration? As some one who works out side much of the day, I get to listen to these different programs at three different times during the day. PBS has exhibited a problem in new non news programs in recent years but even the reruns are better than many of the CBS, NBC, and cable day time and evening programs such as Big Brother, Wife Swap or How I Met Your Mother. PBS is still the only place during the day to see non multi- advertising children's programs. . The government seems to have enough money to spend on wars over seas, military bases in friendly foreign countries, House and Senate pork barrel projects. I believe it is essential to have a non sponsor, non government driven news and entertainment broadcasting outlet to try and keep a balanced view. How else can a democratic country know what is truthfully going on? To think of not funding public broadcasting is insane it is a sure way to loose our democracy.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 08:28 PM	Jeannette Olson : The News Hour is the most important daily source of analysis and un-biased reporting for me. It is the one American program I miss the most when travelling overseas. Viva PBS!

Posted: 02/25/08 at 07:54 PM	Jan : Of course PBS is relevant! Where else can one find unbiased news with both sides of an issue represented, programming designed to inform as well as entertain and freedom from embarrassing commercials? Who needs the thud and blunder of commercial programming dumbing down the country even more?

Posted: 02/25/08 at 07:30 PM	Arlon Stubbe : PBS is essential to the public good. We live in FL for six months each year and have 2 excellent PBS stations, and another 2 when in western PA. Their programs are high quality, balanced and thoughtful. Without specials like Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers' Journal and Lehrer News Hour - our news and commentary would consist of networks and cable only, which increasingly have turned to entertainment and controversy to increase viewing audience - rather than substance. PBS forever!

Posted: 02/25/08 at 07:10 PM	Pamela R. Lombard : Television without PPS is like a Tree without roots! How will we grow.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 07:10 PM	Parnell : Thoughtful, thorough coverage without the commercials...NewsHour with Jim Lehrer ROCKS! P.S. I do wish there would be more on-the-ground reports and less time on interviews and discussions.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 06:57 PM	John Smulders : As an Australian-born citizen residing in Australia, I regularly watch the Newshour on SBS, and Frontline documentaries shared by the SBS network and our national public broadcaster the ABC. Your news programs provide an intelligent and in-depth perspective on the news and foreign policy issues of the day, while also providing a balanced news service which is not afraid to explore both sides of a particular argument or ideological viewpoint. Without the PBS, the cable-based networks alone would fail to provide me with an informative news service which has the balance and professionalism of the Newshour and Frontline programs.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 06:56 PM	Stan-G : No, PBS is not perfect, nor is The News Hour or The New York Times. Are any of them irrelevant? No! Would the public be worse off if any were eliminated? Certainly!

Posted: 02/25/08 at 05:56 PM	Carolyn Bishop : Without the NewsHour, Now, Bill Moyers, and Washington Week, we would perish here in the hinterlands of South Carolina. To see and hear reasonable, articulate, intelligent people discuss the news and ideas is a vital part of each day. Fridays are particularly special because we usually get Mark and David, David B. and road crew, then Gwen and group, and finally Bill and guests. How could anybody in his or her right mind question the relevance of these programs?

Posted: 02/25/08 at 05:47 PM	oldman : PBS including News with Jim Lehrer is a quiet spot in admist the cacophony of the cable and network programing and it is too valuable to lose. In addition, the local programing, in my case WQED in Pittsburgh, is outstanding. They just profiled a program on the Western PA Tuskegee Airman and they also have thoughtful political programs. The NYT is hypocrital I think because cable and networks have government subsidies when channels and broadband or whatever cable uses are sold or given away.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 05:28 PM	Faithful PBS viewer : PBS is a mainstay in my house. The NewsHour w/Jim Lehrer. This is our primary source for news coverage. No other TV or cable media outlet provides the depth and breadth of coverage as The NewsHour does. And some other programs that come to mind are: NOVA; Frontline & Frontline/World; Nature; Austin City Limits; American Experience; Scientific American Frontiers; This Old House(& Ask TOH); Bill Moyers Journal; Faith & Reason; Globe Trekker; Greater Boston; WIRED Science; Wide Angle; The Supreme Court; Soundstage; Ken Burns' Civil War. Of all the television programs I've watched over the years, it is the ones from PBS which have made the lasting impressions. I hold PBS in such high regard that I think of it in different terms than I do the rest of the TV/cable outlets. I expect more from PBS, and I get it! Thank you. My contribution check was mailed last week. If anything, the institution on the brink of irrelevancy is The New York Times. Let's see: Where did Jayson Blair work? That's right, The NYT. His Exec Editor Howell "The Narcissist" Raines and Managing Editor Gerald Boyd resigned in disgrace. And Judith Miller? Where did that witting or unwitting dupe of the Bush Administration work? Oh right! The NYT. A journalistic disgrace. And, I don't have the facts straight, but I can recall 1 or 2 other incidents over the last 4-5 years where The Times have shown themselves to be less worthy of the "paper of record" than at any time in my life. And their partisan coverage of certain topics/events, and the non-coverage of other topics, has led me to sweep the NYT into the same bin as I have most other "for profit" media outlets. They're just another newspaper at this point. Keep up the great work PBS!! I'll try not to complain so much during the next Pledge Drive!

Posted: 02/25/08 at 05:16 PM	Mickm : PBS and The News Hour are responsable, intelligent, civilized and honest. It's a shame that the Times, the networks and the cable news industry can't make the same claim.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 05:00 PM	Oregonian overseas : As an American overseas PhD student, PBS offers me the only reliable means by which I can keep up to date with events in the US. From the US election to social issues, PBS helps keep me in tune with what is happening back home via its website. All the other "news" channels are so blatantly corporate that they are completely unreliable as sources of information. Furthermore, when I lived back in Oregon, PBS was virtually the only channel I watched. I would be very afraid for America if PBS were not there to keep other news channels honest, or people informed. The Bush administration is simply trying to assist corporate interests in gaining a stranglehold on Americans' right to independent and honest reporting. This goes along with his freeing up of anti-merger laws to allow a few corporations to own a greater percentage of US media. These media giants (such as Fairfax and News Corp.) already own the majority of all media sources in Australia and New Zealand (and probably other countries as well, not to mention the US).

Posted: 02/25/08 at 04:09 PM	J.M. Levy : Not everyone has cable. "The News Hours" offers the only in depth news analysis on TV while the other "news" shows are more interested in entertainment rather than information. Cable news channels often focus on celebrities or sensational crime stories, a real distraction from what the public needs to know.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 03:49 PM	Maurice Flynn : I watch Jim Lehrer whenever I am home at 6:00 pm. It is the best news show on the air. Nothing on cable or the other networks compares. To insinuate that Jim may be too old for the job is insulting and short-sighted. May he broadcast for another ten years.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 03:43 PM	David Maranz : I am a regular viewer of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It is the only newscast that is worth viewing. The network newscasts are at least 90 percent fluff or such oversimplifications that they are not worth the price of the ads a viewer must suffer through.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 03:18 PM	Wayne King : I have At&T Universe television coverage, with evey imaginable channel available, and still I watch PBS more than all the other channels put together. Jim Lehrer' news program is superior to all others, and the Bill Moyers interview program on Friday evenings is like intellectual manna to a television audience starving for sustenance. The Times should ask whether the 200-plus commercial and cable channels are worth preserving. Most of the time, except for PBS, I join the Boss, Bruce Springsteen, in mourning that there are 200 channels and nothing on.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 03:15 PM	Roger Pease : Roger and Edna Pease: We watch several programs on the local PBS stations faithfully and the quality and variety of these are superior to that of most of the commercial stations. The Lehrer News Hour, Now, and Bill Moyers are exceptionally fine programs, and BBC News often covers worldwide subjects not found anyplace else. And on the radio, PBS offers a variety of excellent programs. PBS is the number one selection on the car radio.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 02:59 PM	lee jones : PBS encourages civil discourse, expecting the viewer to actually listen quietly, calmly, and to consider various angles of whatever topic is presented. PBS does not engage the viewer by means of hype, or simplistic good/bad solutions. PBS thinks of us as civil listeners, capable of thoughtfulness. Thank you, PBS, for viewing your viewers as intelligent human beings rather than as consuming and materialistic creatures who will voraciously swallow indigestible hype.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 02:52 PM	Sally Moore : I like to watch PBS news for the unbiased presentations. Also, the in-depth reporting of the stories in the news. I would be very unhappy if the news hour with Jim Lehrer were discontinued.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 02:37 PM	Suzanne B. : Cable's 24-hour news has its value, but it doesn't come close to applying the perspective, consideration and savvy of the NewsHour. I second Dale Heckman's comment that the NYT should have asked the far more relevant question, "Are the commercial media -- both TV and radio -- still relevant for news and information reporting? Do they use our public spectrum for significant public benefit?" When I switch over to a commercial network, I'm stunned by the lack of continuity--it's hard to follow a line of thought with constant and lengthy ad interruptions. Maybe that's why even worthy commercial shows have been put in bite-sized, dumbed-down units. Finally, I'll borrow (in jest!) a wild-eyed bumpersticker slogan of years past: "You'll get my PBS when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands!"

Posted: 02/25/08 at 12:59 PM	Sam Gassmann : PBS is the only channel my parents let me watch. We do not have cable so I only get to watch it when I visit my grandparents. Without Novaand the history and science programs as well as the learning shows I would only watch DVD's. I agree that the other stations don't have good stuff on for kids and the commercials are only trying to take my money and make me want stuff that falls apart. PBS likes kids more, I think. And cares what's good for us.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 09:59 AM	Charlotte Mulvihill : The NYT article was elitist in that it assumes that EVERYONE has cable television but there are still a substantial number of tv owners who either cannot afford or choose not to have cable tv - as one of that group, I would be truly lost without the fine programming of PBS, especially the news programming, in contrast to the snippets on CBS, NBC and ABC - PBS is virtually the ONLY television I watch!

Posted: 02/25/08 at 09:28 AM	Sayre&Bonnie Andersen : We get our news from Public TV, most of our entertainment programming, and nearly all our "informational" programs. It is not only relevant; it represents 85-90% of our viewing.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 09:22 AM	Doug : We have entered an age where daily newspapers (such as the New York times) are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Readership is down and revenues are plunging. Some daily rags now give themselves away as a means of being read. Others continue to dumb themselves down in feeble attempts to garner a share of a dissipating pool of revenue. No doubt the Times editorial board finds it far better to accuse PBS of becoming irrelevant than to face up to its own condition. Such whinging may divert attention for a time, but will not reverse the malady. PBS is not immune either. Stalwart shows such as the News Hour should be commended for maintaining their integrity while corporate strategists try to find a way to maintain their bottom line.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 08:21 AM	RedBarberian : In a desert of network stupidity and cable trash, PBS is like an oasis that is more essential than ever. Actually, it is the NYT whose continuation I question; culturally it has dumbed itself down so much that it sometimes reads like a rock 'n roll fan magazine or web site.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 02:17 AM	Dale M. Heckman : It surprises me that The N.Y.Times asked the wrong question again. It should ask, "Are the commercial media -- both TV and radio -- still relevant for news and information reporting? Do they use our public spectrum for significant public benefit?" Public TV and public radio have long provided us the only news (via electronic media) that my family and I trust. As for Jim Lehrer and his finely-tuned team, does The Times forget whom the major parties trusted in the last pres.campaign to moderate their final debates? The owners of The Times may buy up any commercial stations they salivate after, but leave our public-supported TV and radio alone!

Posted: 02/25/08 at 01:36 AM	David Smith : I watch the NewsHour every afternoon here in Canberra Australia on the free-to-air Special Broadcasting Service at 5.oo pm local time, Tuesday to Saturday, which is about 10 hours after it is broadcast in Washington. To me as a foreingner the NewsHour gives a balanced view of American politics without hype. I will admit that some of the items are rather local in the American sense but by-and-large you cover most of the news with fairness, as I've already said. you coverage of foreign news, to you, is a bit patchy but I can accept that. I was particularly pleased that you included the historic, from our point of view, the "sorry" staement by our Prime Minister to the Australian Aboringal people in your news summary recently. Keep up the good work in your news reporting and discussion pieces. We have "knockers" in newspapers in our own country who always think they know what is best.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 01:28 AM	Bob Talbot-Stern : As a Yank living in Australia (Sydney), I can say that I valued the Newshour above all other news broadcasts when I lived in the US (Connecticut, Detroit and Washington DC). The internet is great for getting my fix of US and international news; and I view other US news programs as well . . . but the Newshour (which is on the local SBS network) remains a far superior product for the reasons eloquently stated in the other blurbs . . . all the more so for the depth that explains to me and others not in the US (including non-American viewers) what really is going on there. The Newshour is America's best ambassador as it shows the thoughtful, responsible side of the US rather than the quick news bight of most stations or the jingoistic overstatement of certain others so easily perceived as such by non-Americans.

Posted: 02/25/08 at 12:55 AM	MTinAL : PBS is not only relevant, to me it is a lifeline. Cable may have a few good channels (a very few), but the number of commercial on cable is just ridiculous. I am constantly amazed anyone is willing to pay for cable when the programming on PBS is much, much better...and at a fraction of the cost! In an age of ever increasing media conglomeration, The NewsHour is not only essential viewing, it is one of the view television voices with any meaningful degree of independence. It take so few dollars to provide such a tremendous resource for the public, I think PBS is one of the most productive investments ever made with THE PUBLIC'S tax dollars! Viva PBS!! Viva!!

Posted: 02/25/08 at 12:54 AM	TRUMAN : God help us if we ever lose PBS !!!!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 10:45 PM	Osaru Sasaki : To question PBS’s relevancy as a irrelevant question to begin with. The News Hour which seems to be the focus of the article is by far the best nationwide news program. If I would place an article in the NY Times front page, it would’ve been fund raising for PBS, as oppose to asking for it relevancy

Posted: 02/24/08 at 10:28 PM	Jean Reed : PBS, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You inform me in more comprehensive, balanced ways, often leavened by humor, than any other media source. 2 You provide more thoughtp-provoking and ethically-centered programming than any other media source i know. 3. You delight me with high quality entertainment, both old and new. 4. You rescue me from advertising and the crassness of commercial media. 5. You save me from having to pay ridiculous rates for cable because you use public airways as they should be used. People who can't afford cable or choose not to use it should have access to news and entertainment. 6. You promote genuine democracy by involving your audiences in its crucial questions and in asking them to voluntarily support PBS. There are more ways, but I rest my case.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 10:05 PM	John Harbord : I live in Brisbane, Australia, but I was born in Surabaya in what was then the Dutch East Indies. My father and his mother were also born in Surabaya. His father was born in Vienna. My mother was born in what was then Batavia. Her father was born on the island of Muntok. Her mother was born in the Netherlands. I have cousins who live in various countries including the USA. I would like you to know that I regularly watch the Jim Lehrer News Hour and Meet the Press as well as DW News. I like to try to obtain a broader perspective on world events. The majority of Australian news broadcasts and newspapers contain more parochial news. On SBS I watch also the Dutch language news broadcasts on Mondays. I try to watch French language ones but my french is basic. I also try to watch Chinese news but have no knowledge of any Chinese dialects.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 10:04 PM	Lawrence Hecker : PBS in general and the Newshour in particulr are the best in broadcasting. Quality programming all the time! Short, sparce commercials are also a plus.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 09:41 PM	patrick david gorse : I apologize for getting in on this so late. I write a daily (Mon-Fri) political-pop culture humor column called Gorsefeathers for RadioOnline.com, and I consider The News Hour with Jim Lehrer to be an important and invaluable information source. I have been a daily viewer of the show only for the last two years, so (even though I realized Mr. Lehrer had been involved with the program for a long time), it never occurred to me that he had been on the show since 1975 or that he was 73-years-old. I find each of those numbers to be irrelevant because there is nothing in the quality of work that Jim Lehrer does that indicates his age or length of time with the show are a negative mark against him. I've not seen anything even close to a 'senior moment' attached to Jim Lehrer while viewing the show. Instead, the host I watch nightly is simply the most competent and informative news host in broadcast television. His interviews skills are unmatched, even by the likes of the brilliant Gwen Ifill, Ray Suarez and Judy Woodruff. His understated humor, especially during his moments with Mark Shields and David Brooks is a weekly delight. I find the comment of the New York Times writer, "Jim Lehrer, 73, has been with “NewsHour” since 1975, so long that some of his early viewers are now in assisted living," to be both condescending, and a cynical attempt to lead readers to a discriminatory judgment. This article (Is PBS Still Necessary?) is contemptible and beneath the 'dignity' of the New York Times. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the best news program on television. Patrick David Gorse

Posted: 02/24/08 at 09:40 PM	Pat and Dan Braccio : It is almost beyond comprehension that the NY Times, representing a medium that continues to lose sponsorship and readership, would imply that PBS has lost its relevance. Specifically, PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is an exemplary form of news reporting that gives its viewers the ability to form an educated opinion about current issues. Our hope is that both print media and the quality programming that PBS provides, including Frontline, Bill Moyers' Journal, NOW, etc. continue to attract and excite consumers. We need an informed public now more than ever.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 08:14 PM	trina Paulus : I watch TV only one night a week, start with NOW, than Bill Moyers Journal. I am better educated than most with this. Sometimes some other shows, but this is my Friday night special. I do the news on Radio Pacifica WBAI NJ 99.5 and Democracy Now. Thank you PBS! need you. And yes, I often love Masterpiece theater. tonight Pride and Prejudice concludes.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 08:08 PM	Burt Nelson : The New York Times article, "Is PBS Still Necessary?", by Charles McGrath is an excellent show piece for McGrath's creative writing ability but little else. Amidst numerous high impact words and phrases, we are astonished to learn that the telivision landscape has changed! Because there are now other sources of "high-minded programming" should PBS quietly fade away and save the tax dollars? This would indeed complete the privitization of the once public airways. Or should PBS fans prod congress into providing more funds so that PBS can stop "water-boarding" its viewers and limping along with low cost shows like "Antiques Roadshow"? McGrath does not guide us. Should the news hour continue in its decades old mustiness or should it engage in the personality contest of the modern infotainment show? How say you sir? Are those of us in assisted living no longer worthy of better than the ipoder's taste? This is one vote for PBS's continued "mustiness".

Posted: 02/24/08 at 07:53 PM	Leonor A Barrett : I am a grandmother whose grandaughter told her "Grandma you watch to many news programs" Well, I rather give up CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS combined than give up The News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 07:49 PM	Karis Goldsberry : I am a news junkie and the most reliable, accurate, and balanced reporting comes from PBS, NPR, and C-Span. Jim Lehrer and Brian Lamb are heroes of mine among reporters.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 07:33 PM	Donald Yannella : Rather than repeating or endorsing the numerous positive reviews given by others already about the consistently high quality of programs such as the Newshour, Moyers' Journal, PBS Now, or again lamenting the ongoing lack of support for American counterparts of Masterpiece Theater and other imports, I'll simply open myself to being accused by McGrath and his sort of an personal attack. If McGrath can introduce silliness such as Jim Lehrer's being 73 (my age too}, then I should be allowed to call attention to McGrath's nostalgic reflection on his '60s undergraduate days at Yale where he reports roaming the stands at football games on "fart patrol," scoring finds such as "geezers in their raccoon skins or camel hair topcoats" ("Rites of Autumn," YALE ALUMNI MAGAZINE, January/February 2004, pp.67-69). He admits that his own gang of nearly geezers today in their boringly casual duds are sad, even sloppy, compared to the the alums who turned out in the '60s. But, more important, we should contrast the slide at the TIMES, including the Book Review during McGrath's recent editorial reign, with the hard- won stability and, yes, health of the solid, even reporting by Lehrer, et al. If there are, to use McGrath's vulgarism, "farts," they come from the lips of the chattering classes who fill commercial programming. I'll end here by scoring both the TIMES and the Newshour for their hospitality to David Brooks, subject for another comment.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 07:26 PM	ch : Of course PBS is relevant. I just watched a host of programs for Black history month. Not only that, they cover stories on all races/cultures and I love their dedication to musicians and political programs. It is definitely a "necessity". It's very educational, please do not ever get rid of PBS. It's still the best decent thing on television, and if it weren't for the programs they show, I would miss out on a lot.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 06:58 PM	Barbara Garson : I've struggled to find a news station that does justice to domestic and world news so that I am an educated citizen. BBC, CNN, network news - they all leave me without enough substantial information about the MANY sides of news reporting and situations around the world. If I am going to be an effective citizen who can make educated decisions about my political voting and causes to champion I need to know I have substantial, sophisticated and accurate information. I am a visual person who desires daily updates. ONLY the Newshour provides this depth and breadth of information. If there is another television source of the same quality or better PLEASE LET ME KNOW!! Otherwise my dollar stops at this report. I absolutely champion this production.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 06:51 PM	Nelson, S : I would much rather give up the rest of the TV stations before I would give up PBS! Enjoyable culturally, infomative, and not as controlled by media/corporations as much as other news programs.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 06:51 PM	John Chapko : Over the last number of years I have become very disillusioned with network and cable news programs. Specific programs have not only left behind any form of outward commitment to even handed, mature journalism, they have resorted to a 'world wrestling' kind of attack format that incites antagonisms and does little to promote the modeling of adult communication where genuine disagreement exists. The News Hour is my alternative. I respect and trust the kind of reporting the program provides, including segments that feature proponents of differing opinion. And I am glad, as a result of watching the news hour, of being introduced to David Brooks. He represents honesty and measured journalistic responses to topics. I say this this a sense of respect in part because no one would accuse me of being politically or otherwise, conservative.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 05:40 PM	Warren : Unnecessary? Musty? Contrary to Mr. McGrath’s opinion that PBS adds only a “little grace note to our lives,” PBS continues to provide some of the best shows on TV. The NewsHour deserves special mention for the way it gives viewers the most in-depth and even-handed analysis of the daily news and current issues. But the list goes on and on…Frontline, Charlie Rose, Now …Nature, Nova, American Experience…America’s Test Kitchen, Sesame Street...I’m glad that cable networks are providing some additional high-quality news, nature, science, and history shows. I’m also glad that the audience is growing for the great programming on NPR. But at a time when world-class newspapers and other trusted information sources are either being forced to cut back or appeal more to commercial interests, the value of PBS couldn’t be more self-evident.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 05:38 PM	John : The criticisms have validity. But that fact calls for more investment, not less. PBS needs to demonstrate that it can escape a tendency toward banality and revive its perceived innovative past. Otherwise, it might as well just become a branch office of BBC. The present exception of steady quality can be found in the News Hour which is an absolute necessity for the continued well being of the Republic.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 05:24 PM	edgey : PBS is not only relevant it is necessary. PBS is the only station where intelligent programming, relevant and comprehensive news coverage, intelliegent discussion and educational formats are available. In this era of 2 second sound bites, bling and entertainment instead of news...or as they call it now ...news "show".....PBS is more relevant in all areas than ever before.!! I can not understand why the NY Times even needed to ask the question. Democracy is indeed in question if they even ever think of minimizing or removing PBS.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 05:18 PM	Nona Lee Gregg : PBS nees more money not less. It also needs unbiased leadership. I watch the News Hour, I'm not always in agreement of what they cover and how, but, needless to say, I'm not watching the other news casts. I do not have cable, the Times article seems to assume everyone does. Even if I did, I would still watch PBS. Programs like Frontline, Now and Bill Moyer's Journal are matchless for the kind of in-depth information given. The writer(s) of the Times article can watch what they like. Leave PBS alone it needs more support so that the likes of ADM, Chevron, Boeing, and similar corporations can be eliminated.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 05:16 PM	Donald K. : Consideration of funding for PBS must consider the environment. Because there are more opportunities for voices doesn't mean that they are useful or productive. We have seen a number of instances on cable and network TV recently with errors or unprofessional comments by "newspersons". The NewsHour on the other hand consistently gives us authorities and experts representing multiple viewpoints on a story and in depth. As the Times reported, that might be considered as bland but such is giving information to a listener. The Times reporter did not delve into the fiscal realities of broadcasting today...television is an expensive medium and it simply devours content. The result is repetition of the quality material that they have. Public broadcasting has set the bar so high that with level funding, their ability to provide program material in an increasing cost environment is reduced....shrinking support develops a self-fulfilling prophecy. And federal funding is not level but continues to be cut. The Presdent and Congress should not be threatening further cuts to PBS funding, but should be building educational bridges to somewhere, a small share of entitlements that are included in each "modern" budget bill. PBS...keep up the good work! Thank you.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 05:09 PM	J. Byma : My husband and I watch only PBS programs as they are the only programs which do not insult our intelligence and which expand our political, cultural, societal and scientific awareness and knowledge. In particular, The Lehrer Newshour offers us an opportunity to hear varied opinions and analysis of the day's important events and issues facing this country and Frontline and BBC news give us information not covered by the commercial news organizations. In his NYT article, Mr. McGrath puts forth a false premise when he trumpets cable as being a valid replacement for PBS. As others have said, cable is not available to everyone nor does everyone, including ourselves, want to have or pay for access to hundreds of channels that offer little of interest. We support our local PBS station with regular monetary contributions. It's a disgrace that our country will not increase federal funding for PBS when it needs, more than ever, the content, quality and depth of programming that public TV can bring to its viewers. Rather than contributing to the increasing dumbing down of intellectual capacity in this country by eliminating or decreasing federal subsidies for public television, we can try to raise the standard with increasing its funding. If PBS ceases to exist, we will stop watching television.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:51 PM	Mary Anne Clausen : Thank goodness for the Newshour and its top notch interviewers, whose concern is neither promoting themselves nor pandering in order to entertain, but who concentrate on eliciting important facts and opinion from knowledgeable guests. So long as there is a need for well informed citizens, the Newshour and the other few news shows of similar quality, most of them on PBS, will be not just relevant, but essential.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:41 PM	Suzanne Shannon : Our afternoon newspaper, the Albuquerque Tribune, died yesterday after a run of 86 years of consistently high-quality, relevant reporting of both local and national news issues. It ran the course of most afternoon newspapers, but left its long-time admirers like myself in mourning for the inciteful, pull-no-punches unbiased reporting of issues. Without sources such as this and PBS, I don't know where I could count on getting the news. I don't particularly care what happens to my local broadcast news or the national news on the commercial television stations, but I need to be able to count on PBS in order to feel informed.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:29 PM	Damien : PBS in general, and 'The News Hour with Jim Lehrer' in particular, is an oasis of dignity in a vast sea of spin, disinformation, distraction and hysteria. As far as I know, there is no other television news service of comparable quality in the English speaking world. I watched the NewsHour before I moved to America and I have continued to watch it since for that reason. By the by: I am 26 years old. I mention this because the Times piece repeatedly implied that PBS and the NewsHour are musty relics of a bygone era, kept from falling off the edge of the Earth by stubborn oldsters who refuse to change the channel.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:28 PM	leanne paetz : PBS is the only relevant network available in my book! Sure, there are things I may not like or enjoy, but where else but the News Hour am I going to find real news, as opposed to the latest Brittney Spears gossip or other un-newsworthy bit of titillating information. Isn't there enough "dumbing-down" in the media and culture as a whole? I have all but quit watching or listening to all but NPR and PBS over the past several years, because no where else do I find enough healthy food to feed my brain. The rest of the population can continue feeding on the fluff & goo spewed out from other networks, but as for me and mine, we are all yours, PBS!!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:20 PM	Richard : I was taught that there were no such things as stupid questions. Perhaps “times” have changed and there are now such accepted interrogatories boasted and backed by the well-financed elite. I continue to support local PBS programming for many reasons – The “NewsHour” is one of several. In fact, I receive a programming guide loaded cover to cover with reasons and intelligent programming. Whether new data for the sciences and documentaries or updates to current events to inform the public I am not disappointed. I have grown accustomed to being well informed through PBS and even expect it. It is a habit I intend to keep.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:11 PM	Marnie Hammer : I learn about so many things from the Newshour that I wouldn't have had the time to uncover on my own. The Newshour is relevant and having a host with experience to weigh in on current events is helpful in a "youth obsessed" culture. The updates that have occurred to the program are driving me to finally purchase an HD TV - I feel like I am missing too much. Finally in an era of biased news from Disney, Murdoch and other media corporations who have far too much media control, it is delightful to have a balanced view presented. To suggest that the Newshour and other PBS shows be snuffed out would bring on the damage that the Founding Fathers feared - news and the Fourth Estate are critical to a functioning democracy. I could do without my local paper far easier than I could do without PBS and NPR.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:10 PM	Susan Hartje : In today's corporate-owned media market, PBS is one of the only free and fair sources of balanced news, information and education. A Free media is a critical part of a functional Democracy. Their ability to freely question and challenge the veracity of legislative, judical and presidential activities are what inform the population and allows the 'common' citizen to be involved. A free media -- one not motivated by financial or political profit -- is critical. When the other rails of power in our Democracy become corrupted -- which most folks will agree is currently happening -- a non-profit Free Media is the last chance to re-balance the scales of justice. We need more, not less PBS!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:01 PM	Jud : I question the relevancy of the Times.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:51 PM	Cynthia M : If there were no PBS stations I wouldn't have a need for a television. Fortunately in my area I have a choice of 3 PBS channels. The rest of network television should take programming lessons from PBS and use their ability at captivating audiences with the showing of more educational programs that are also entertaining.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:31 PM	Nick Burlinson : If it was not for PBS, I probably would not watch TV. There is so much garbage out there on NBC,CBS,ABC,FOX commercial TV, that it is not surprising many third world countries think of the USA as the 'devil'. Granted, I only get the minimum (about 12 channels) on my Direct TV signal. I strongly support PBS and the "Jim Lehrer Newshour"

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:26 PM	Brian : Even though I have a strong objection to some of your left-leaning programming (NOW, Moyers, Frontline, BBC News), it is a completely ridiculous notion to question the value of your news (News Hour, Nightly Business Report, Washington Week...), science (NOVA, Nature...), and interest (This Old House, Antiques Roadshow...) programs. Where else would we get these great programs ? I think the New York Times is simply throwing rocks from a sinking ship.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:22 PM	Clem and Dianne : PBS in its entirety is a national treasure. Not only do we appreciate the unbiased reporting on the NewsHour, but many other shows as well. Other news organizations give opinions rather than providing both sides of the issues and allowing us to decide for ourselves what is relevant. We have and will continue to support PBS because of the NewsHour, Frontline, Masterpiece, Mystery!, Great Performances, American Experience, Nova, Nature, Now, Bill Moyers Journal, Washington Week, Sesame Street (and other children's programming). And this is the short list! Where else (other than a theatre) can you see a performance of Sondheim's "Company"? How about Eric Clapton, James Taylor? Thank you PBS for enriching our lives.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:02 PM	David & Avril Howe : Yes, Public Broadcasting is often fusty -- but irrelevant, never. Agreed; ‘soft’ programming such as Antiques Roadshow, Ballroom Dancing, a permanent Jane Austen season and silly Brit comedies to name a few do leave rather a lot to be desired. But nowhere else can be found in depth, thoughtful and educational programming such as The News Hour, Washington Week, Sesame Street, Studio 360, Now, Moyers, Nova, Frontline etc. etc. How can anyone suggest that such important, searching and relevant programs be dropped to leave only the propaganda / info-tainment, People Magazine style programs that pass for journalism and reporting everywhere else on our audio, video and streaming dials? And what does Jim Lehrer’s age have to do with anything? It is obvious that he has a more agile, incisive and humanitarian mind, and a far greater sense of responsibility than all the ranters, some half his age, found on the other news and talk stations. If this is fusty then the world, and our so called news outlets, could well do with more of the fusty and less of the glitzy self-promoting, bottom-line and advertising driven fare that is served up as news these days. It would seem that the NYT and those that deem PBS obsolete are unable to distinguish between the ‘fustiness’ of PBS and the plethora of superficial, two second sound-bite rubbish propagated by all the other so called news outlets combined.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 02:40 PM	Mark & Gisela Wilson : Are Charles McGrath's columns still necessary? His vacuous essay is more an inadvertent comment on the writer's bad mood than an analysis of PBS' worth. PBS is the only television offering unbiased, in-depth, broad-range coverage and analysis of the news. Charles McGrath's personal attack on Jim Lehrer regarding his age is not only indecent but unintelligent: it is precisely the cumulative experience of the people involved with long-term PBS programs that makes them so valuable. Charles McGrath's criticism of PBS for insufficient funds is puzzling. It is partly the federal government's unwillingness to fund it sufficiently that leaves PBS vulnerable to its corporate sponsors' demands for time devoted to commercials. If everyone who watches PBS television actually contributed to it even one-quarter of what they're willing to shell out for cable access, "Masterpiece" wouldn't be "strapped for cash" and shows like "Planet Earth" might in fact be affordable. Come to think of it, given this ongoing problem with obtaining enough funds, it is both admirable and amazing that PBS is able to continue broadcasting such high-quality programs. This essay by Charles McGrath is, however, not entirely worthless: it serves as a wake-up call to those of us who want PBS to thrive, reminding us that there are many who wish it would go away.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 02:39 PM	Joseph/Lois Thompson : We find PBS provides the only consistently worthwhile programming on TV. There one can find real news with enlightened analyses, entertaining dramas and comedies, and substantive discussions of important issues. Loss of this resource would be a disaster.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 02:17 PM	herman trutner : It is extremely important that PBS continue to receive federal support,especially in reporting the news. The Lehrer hour gives a balanced view of the important news of the day and is an important educational tool for the public, young and old.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 02:10 PM	Audrey Ruth : The reason I subscribe to cable TV is to access PBS. The daily Lerner news hour is the most respected and trusted news show in the U.S. PBS is the only channel that respects viewers' intelligence. The other channels sunk to the lowest common denominator level long ago. What is the matter with the New York Times? This, and the attempt to smear McCain, makes me think that they must have serious circulation problems. I believe that PBS is a national treasure and should be permanently preserved.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:54 PM	Charlene : My high interest in current events and ideas is inversely proportional to my income. Please, please maintain a tabloid murder/Britney free zone. Yes, I mean PBS.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:52 PM	Patrick Smiekel : PBS is very important to the American public as it gives an adult option to news and broadcasts programs that parents can feel comfortable having their children watch. So much of television is geared to noise and sensationalism that eliminating PBS would be a huge mistake.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:29 PM	Gary Oetting : PBS is one of the few stations I think has programs worth watching. Most all the other are just chewing gum for the eyes. for people that think and want to learn PBS has it. So in my opinion it is not PBS that is outdated, but it is the Times that is outdated and destined for extinction that's why their articles are so desperate.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:20 PM	Frederick Franke : It appears that most of the positive comments are from PBS staffers and family members. WHYY in our area has gone from begging for money twice a year to begging for money twice a month. They've become bottom line oriented every bit as much as any commercial station. The money is never enough as they become more and more management top heavy. Opps! I guess I'm not suppose to notice that they assualt us with commericals in the first and last five minutes of every program. Sorry.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 12:45 PM	Shirley Sampson : There is no other TV new program that comes near the News Hour for accurate, detailed information. I support my local station and an important part of my support is for the News Hour. Don't change!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 12:39 PM	David Edelstein : The News Hour provides in depth reporting and analysis of current events. There is no other source on television that offers this degree of coverage. Jim Lehrer is stands on the shoulders of Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite. If we lose the kind of reporting provided by both the N.Y. Times and PBS, we'll lose the American democracy.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 12:34 PM	Dillard : Not only should PBS continue to be federally funded, it should be doubled. It would not be a totally bad idea if certain programs were mandtory viewing for preschool aged children. The only problem I see with PBS is that certain programs are repeated for weeks and months. I worked for WGTV at the University of Georgia in the late 60s and fell in love with Bert and Ernie, Masterpiece Theater, and owe much of what I know to the quality programming PBS provides. Nova, Nature, News Hour, Washington Week and many other programs are the true award winners of the TV world.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 12:16 PM	M. R. Klivington : I was dismayed by the Times article about the relevance of PBS. Cable TV truly is a vast wasteland and if it were not for PBS, I wouldn't have the privilege of being so well informed on so many issues. I love the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. I tune in wherever I am in the US. I am an avid supporter and will continue to contribute in hopes of not losing this precious commodity. Thank You, Thank You.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 12:11 PM	Helen Herleikson : Yes, very definitely, please keep my PBS reporters and commentaries broadcasting the news. I enjoy the fact that they give both sides of the story so i can make up my own mind on the problems facing us. Again i was to stress how important PBS is to me and my family as an advit supporter, Thanks for allowing me to voice my opinion.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 11:56 AM	Rusty Wadsworth : There just simply is no other news station that presents the new factually rather than "hyping" whatever they have chosen to report. Of course, the full range of PBS programs is wonderfull, too.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 11:54 AM	Beverly Reynolds : Before WXXI, Rochester, New York, there was another classical music station which changed their format. I was so thrilled that we had WXXI to listen to, as I do all day long on radio, and most of the evening programs on television. We have been supporters since those early days and are charter members. Rochesterians and suburbanites love their classical music and these stations are a MUST

Posted: 02/24/08 at 11:33 AM	Jesse & Bernadine : We wish to add our voice in support of PBS, the only forum for news, views and entertainment not part of the wasteland that is today's TV menu.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 11:31 AM	G. LeRoy : After reading a number of to comments from other viewers, I can only echo what they say. Absolutely, PBS is very relevant. Although some of the programs are more important to me than others, I find that the quality of all your programs is so far superior to most anything else. In trying to come to a better understanding of what is really going on in this world, I feel that the News Hour, the other news programs and documentaries all do thier utmost to give a thorough, unbiased presentation. Thank you for so many wonderful years. Please stay with us.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 11:16 AM	Dennis Weiler : This ongoing drive to halt funding for PBS is nothing more than an attempt to supress the analysis, communication and discussion of pertinent information and typifies the Putinesque measures the Republican administration is willing to pursue to degrade what little exchange of ideas and constitutional rights that remain after these last seven years. There are few if any other televised sources other than PBS from which this vital information is made available. If anything, funding should be doubled.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 10:35 AM	Chase Rice : Regular television is mind-numbing, biased, violent, often disgusting, and a disgrace to America, and it is beamed all over the world. I tried cable and satellite and gave them up. They were very expensive and offered much of the same pap, but one could sit in front of the television all day, which is what a lot of people do. I couldn't get along without PBS and NPR as they offer quality, adult programing.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 09:54 AM	mwoods : The Newshour is a much needed and appreciated staple in my daily collection of information about the world in which I live. I count on it. I learn from it. Newshour invites me to understand, especially on political topics, and calls me to confront even ugly issues with candor- to really ask "what is fact" and "what is opinon." I also really love that Newshour is not 60 minutes of middle-aged white guys telling me what I should think or patting me on the head with a feel-good story of the week. The Newshour is for people who think and care and challenge. To all of the people who work so hard to deliver this quality program every evening for those who want to know—thank you, and keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 09:52 AM	mwoods : The Newshour is a much needed and appreciated staple in my daily collection of information about the world in which I live. I count on it. I learn from it. Newshour invites me to understand, especially on political topics, and calls me to confront even ugly issues with candor- to really ask "what is fact" and "what is opinon." I also really love that Newshour is not 60 minutes of middle-aged white guys telling me what I should think or patting me on the head with a feel-good story of the week. The Newshour is for people who think and care and challenge. To all of the people who work so hard to deliver this quality program every evening for those who want to know—thank you, and keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 09:28 AM	fedrick : The News Hour is my primary source of news. Next comes the New York Times. It heartens me so many feel as passionatly abiyt PBS as I do.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 09:15 AM	Greg Metcalf : I read the NY Times for 40 years when I lived in NYC; but now that I live in Utah where it takes 7-9 days for the Times to arrive this family spends all of its time with PBS: for us it is both "relevant" and absolutely essential in our rural community. You go PBS!!!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 08:16 AM	Carole Cavanaugh : I'm just adding my voice to so many here in support of Jim Leherer. The News Hour is the best thing on television. I can't remember what the subject was, but I recall my amazement once at a story with experts who were all minorities speaking on a topic unrelated to minority issues. They were there as experts in their fields, not as representatives of their race. What a concept! Where else would you find that kind of grown-up sense on American TV? I know I'll always get the full story from The News Hour without the hosts promoting their own egos. If the show goes off the air, I might as well throw away my TV.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 05:15 AM	Larry Rosenberger : I'm confident that I'm not the only one with the view that "Jim Lehrer, 73, has been with “NewsHour” since 1975, so long that some of his early viewers are now in assisted living" is a really CHEAP SHOT that damages the reputation of the New York Times. What part of that sentence has any relevant bearing on the merits of the Newshour in particular and PBS in general? If there's a "musty" institution that ought to be examined for its "no longer relevant" journalistic practices, it's the New York Times.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 04:14 AM	Tom Gates : Thank goodness for PBS. The network morning programs have become TV tabloid format. Evening news has become info-tainment. When should the creation of a new separate nation and Brittney grace the same 30-minute news program? Sure Nova, Nature, Sesame Street, News Hour, This Old House, etc are in their 2nd and 3rd decades - because they are good and have stood the test of time. Most new network shows can't be found after the first three months, let alone three years. 48-Hour Mystery and a 10-year old case vs Frontline and a no-punches-pulled look at current topics. Gee, takes about 2-seconds to determine which should remain on the air. The current Washington establishment and its big-business ties has been stung big time by public television and radio over the years. Tom Delay exposed as the thief and cheat he is (ABC had him giving election opinion with George S. - Really!!??) Enron exposed and the ties to the current administration and why problems were not remedied before the corporate collapse and robbing of California electric customers. Blackwater exposed and the 10's of millions of our tax dollars they just left in the desert because their equipment was out of fuel, oil, or had a flat tire - for starters. Did I see any of this on a network program of any kind? Absolutely not. Was this on cable? Darn if I'd know. With the drivel on network TV - why pay good money to see more of the same, just on 40-times more channels. Thank goodness for PBS!!!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:21 AM	Glenn Reihing : The cynical side of me cannot help but wonder if this is not a test balloon sent up to gauge support for PBS. I have watched over the years and seen "news" channels morph mayhem (murders, fires) into actual "news". It is important to remember how much real programming variety on current issues are actually shown on these "news" channels. In my opinion that amount is extremely little as compared to PBS. Another point to be made is that it is not the Times place to be asking such a question. The ability to obtain news and information from whatever the source should not be regarded as irrelevant. If anything they should strive to protect it. For a major news outlet like the Times to write an article like that worries me as to who is really in charge (behind the scenes).

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:19 AM	winnie : The News Hour has to be THE BEST one-hour news show on television. Every single reporter and commentator is top notch. This intelligent, eloquent program should remain in our lives for ever. No doubt.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 03:06 AM	Philip Suthons : This is a comment about the New York Times article on the relevance of PBS. First of all, I'm a Canadian living in Japan, so maybe my opinion doesn't matter. I decided not to respond on the Times site, because I was so angry; writing to the Times feels like talking to the Taliban. I never expected the Times to write such a rude, shallow and possibly criminal article (Jim Lehrer is 73? So what??). By the way, I'm 53 and I don't need assistance, thank you very much. The Times is no longer venerable, not as far as I'm concerned! Almost every point they raised was ludicrous: for example, was there no serious tv journalism in the sixties? Did they miss the Vietnam War? Sure things are better now... because we have PBS. The main thrust of their criticism seemed to be with entertainment programming. Education is not entertainment! (I'm a university lecturer.) There's plenty of entertainment on the other networks. That's why we need educational tv. I think the Iraq War, the New Orleans fiasco, Enron, the subprime crisis and whatever comes next is ample reason to keep PBS. The U.S. is falling behind in democracy -- which requires an informed public. What we don't need is CNN, ABC, FOX and other shrill "entertainment"/ propaganda. Maybe we don't need the Times either.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 02:41 AM	William Kidd : It must be a fascinating world that this guy McGrath lives in, but it sure doesn't resemble any reality I know. It boggles the mind that he considers the NewsHour in the same category as network news -- ANY network or cable news program. He does barely touch some of the real world in his comments about NPR, but other than the difference in the percentage of airtime devoted to current events/news (Gee! Do you think the differing funding levels might have something to do with that??), PBS & NPR are the ONLY places the responsible citizen can go to hear/see in-depth access and reviews. I have often only been able to hear or see the viewpoints of those who oppose my own on one or both of these sources. To allege that "extended news broadcasts" of the PBS sort can be found on cable is totally ludicrous. Cable certainly addresses a host of niche interests, but I have found that even if you can find a channel which includes the niche of your choice, the quality is usually a mile wide and an inch deep. No one consistently does current events, political analysis (in the true sense of the phrase, not several talking heads debating whether some candidate's faux pas is worse than another's) international relations, or the like as thoroughly as does PBS, short of C-SPAN which of course eliminates the analysis and gives you random access and periodic insight into the views of those who you will NEVER see on network or cable programs, OR on PBS. The repeated White House (read "Republican") efforts to stifle PBS is just another sign how much they fear a citizenry that is well-informed and able to distinguish good science from religious proseletyzing. Mr. McGrath is whining because PBS doesn't more perfectly fill the niches of his preference. I, too, would prefer more of what I like, but that's no more likely than "free lunch", and I'll put up with tuning out the "Ballroom Challenge" in return for the opportunity to never miss Lehrer, Now, Moyers, Am Experience, Nova and the occasional history special.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 02:41 AM	Justin White : I must add this postscript to my earlier comment. I am one of a group of friends who watch Charlie Rose as he fuels discussions with some of the best interviewing this side of heaven. Once again I must comment on the depth of information that is transmitted nightly on Jim Lehrer's News Hour. His commentators and interviewers are the best I have ever seen.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 02:27 AM	Justin White : After reading some of the comments that precede mine I feel like I am writing in an echo chamber.I am a devoted consumer and long time financial supporter of PBS radio and television. The programming regularly provides me with a range of intellectual stimulus and entertainment that other media do not even approach. I work late on Friday evenings and am able to come home before Jim Lerher's News Hour and tape his show and the subsequent hours of Friday evening news round-ups and analyses(Gwen Ifill, NOW, Bill Moyers). This allows me to strech out and listen carefully when I am comfortable. More importantly, I do not miss these offerings. This is just one example of the importance I place on Public Televison. Few of our nation's social institutions can match PBS's consistent high quality and I am sure it is those characteristics that generate consternation amongst those who would not attempt to (nor in most cases can they) compete at the same level.Thank you for the opportunity to express my thoughts and you can count on my continued support.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:48 AM	Jim DeLoach : PBS and Jim Lehrer’s News Hour is my primary source of news. Yes, I read the paper, listen to the news on the radio and check out the web, but by far the most reliable news and analysis comes from PBS. To say it is no longer necessary is just not true. The documentaries and other programs are far superior to most anything found on commercial TV. Jim DeLoach (Stockton, CA)

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:38 AM	G Sawyer : I agree with many of the comments posted here. PBS is invaluable in making real news accessible to the American public. Additionally, I continue to be amazed at the excellent cultural programming that is offered. I don't watch any other station, not just because of the lack of good information elsewhere, but because I've decided I don't need the excessively crude, materialistic, and generally distasteful programming offered on other stations, especially cable stations. Thank you PBS for programming that is informative, interesting, and mindful of basic human dignity.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:30 AM	Peter LaTorre : The viewing audience for PBS television may be shrinking, but it's role as intelligent TV for the masses is needed more now than ever. To me, you cannot find a better, more balance and objective news program than the "Newshour". I don't care if Jim Lehrer is 73. Ray Suarez, Gwen Ifill, and Judy Woodruff are all top notch. My wife and I watch it every night. And have for the last 20 years. PBS is much more than the old standbys like NOVA. There are local programs like Quest, Spark, American Experience which are entertaining and thought-provoking. We need to keep it and improve it, not get rid of it. Perhaps federal funding will go up once the Bush Administration is out and the Iraq war is over. You state there is no liberal bias on PBS, and I agree. But the Republicans are STILL promoting the perception that PBS is a bastion of liberal bias. Long live PBS!

Posted: 02/24/08 at 01:16 AM	TheTeaDiva : The whole household LOVES you PBS! From 86 year old Grandma who revels in the hilarious snobbishness of Hyacinth, to my 4 1/2 year old autistic son, who loves all the PBS kids shows with their websites to match (and who constantly recites the entire list of contributors to various programs), to me, a tail end baby-boomer, who was devastated when Bill Moyers left NOW - even though I thought David Brancaccio was very easy on the eyes - but then became completely ecstatic when Moyers came out with his journal. (More of Moyers and Branccacio! Joking aside, Now and the Journal are 2 of my faves - great in depth coverage on timely issues, with more insights available online.) All the girls have loved the Jane Austen specials, and the Wild series continues to thrill us all. We don't have cable, and can't imagine why we'd want it. Okay - maybe the history channel someday. But really - PBS is our mainstay 98% of the time. And really - The News Hour is such a beacon in the news world. It really gets us all going when we hear people saying that The News Hour is "the liberal news." Well - maybe in comparison to FOX, but it is so obvious that such care is taken to maintain objectivity and balance - for real - not FAUX. And for any of those out there that are skeptics, take a look at the comments about The News Hour in this study: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx #1 for "most centrist!" Thanks PBS for being all you are to us.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 12:17 AM	Tim Brown : I'm a 22-year-old senior of political science at Arizona State University , and people are always surprised when I tell them the one hour of news casting a day I couldn’t live without is the News-hour with Mr. Jim Lehrer. If I were to pick the second most valuable hour of programming on television it would be either Frontline or Nova. Without a Doubt. Thanks PBS.

Posted: 02/24/08 at 12:07 AM	AlisonS : I cannot imagine living without the News Hour, Now, Bill Moyers, Washington Week etc. Not to mention all the marvelous arts and drama shows. As a Canadian, I have the CBC but for American coverage, PBS is the only reliable source for news. May you long be able to keep up the quality work

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:40 PM	Lois Firalyo : We have had cable TV for two years but we rarely watch anything that isn't on PBS and we're members of our local station. It would be hard to live without Frontline, Bill Moyers, Now, Nova, and many others we watch regularly. And we have been avid NPR listeners for thirty years, too.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:18 PM	johnnie : Hi. Newshour with Jim Lehrer is a regular for me. i live in Australia and we get it on our SBS network daily and with the time difference the previous day's show. we see it daily at 5-6PM local time. it is fantastic and the PBS is to be congratulated. i like the presenter, his experience & unassuming manner, and the other news-heads are good, and i enjoy your two regular columnists, one from the NY Times the other independent (i put my hard-earned dollars - i have bet 3X - on Hillary for the Democrat nomination, after your guys previous comments and sticking with her, now 4/1 here and that's big odds.) seriously, the program gives me insight into the USA and how it thinks and what are its concerns. and i so much appreciated your nightly commemoration of your soldiers who die in Iraq, it is an honorable tribute (my mate actually used to send these photos to our govt politicians in Canberra - they have since lost the election). i hope you keep going. you are doing a great service even to us here in Australia. cheers

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:15 PM	Willie M. Defee : The News Hour with Jim Leher is THE program for me and my husband, and has been for many many years. We go back to McNeil/Leher!For us, there is no more honest, thought provoking news than that one. Add to that the other great programs--Washington Week, NOW. Bill Moyers, Masterpiece Theatre,Mystery, and Charlie Rose. What more can one ask? Otherwise, T.V. is mostly entertainment, and not very much of that. We watch very little, but P.B.S. is tops with us. Relevent? I vote a hearty YES!!!!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:13 PM	Mary Phillips : Bottom Line: PBS is important! That is where I get my news. The other commercial stations are NOT an option in our home. We want to hear the whole story. I always watch the News Hour. It appears that the New York Times reporter was talking through his hat.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:44 PM	Cynthia : We need many, many PBS's, of course.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:22 PM	Christian Engleman : After others' at length eloquence, I post only to vote for PBS. However, one comment on News broadcasting: Turner CNN was immediate and often had wonderful detail, going beyond daily PBS News. The new and improved CNN can’t keep up with Fox but does its best in affecting the Fox paradigm of third graders running around screaming at each other. I do hope PBS can resist this format. The Times was right about Waterboarding and Pledge Week. I sit in solemn silence.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:20 PM	Yael : I thought about this for a while before I decided I would actually write anything myself. The reason for my decision to post something: I simply could not imagine my family life without PBS. Inconceivable.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:59 PM	Nonni : We NEED PBS for our intelligence to be fed and nurtured. We can count on 'fair and balanced' information, not entertainment. Cable News has become increasingly biased and a branch of show business, with the true information lost and obscured with opinions and favor. Let's keep the information on PBS and the clowns in the circus!!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:55 PM	Joel Porter : My wife, Bobbie, has gotten me to join her in watching The News Hour with Jim Lehrer every night during our dinner without fail. It's become a part of our lives. It is as essential to us now as were other programs of its kind growing up in the 70's. But because of how fast news circulates in modern times, it's even more relevant now.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:47 PM	Tijo : Twenty, or was it thirty, years ago we were staunch supporters of Public Radio & Telivision. That was until you started having your first commercials -- & yet you kept referring to yourselves as "commericial-free". We, and presumably others, pointed out the hypocrisy of this to you without avail. Since then your commericialization has got worse & worse & evermore tacky. You are almost as bad as the other out-&-out commerical programmes. What makes it worse is that unlike the confessedly commercial stations, you have become precious. PBS is so special, such a blessing to the public that "EVERYBODY should support us!" Hence the blitz of adverts: "We'll blast the dough out of 'em!". But that doesn't work does it. It just hardens the hearts. One of your most egregious & obnoxious gimmicks are those goddamned strips & descending balloons that you slap in our faces when we are trying to watch something else, e.g. Masterpiece Theatre, or American Experience. With this brilliant innovation you not only startle us, but shatter the spell (if there is any to begin with) of what we are watching. That includes Lehrer News Hour. Who cares about Rick Steve's Europe, or Rick Steve's anything. Rick (or is it Ric???} is a bore. Should we want to find him, for some unimaginable reason, we are perfectly capable of doing so -- without your obtrusive help. As for your hundreds of comments -- our printer currently is not working, so our visual accuity & commitment were not strong enough to lead us to read more than a few. We noticed particularly the euphoria of many & the constant references to "deep analysis", the broad range of topics, the high "intellectual level" -- well yes, when compared with everything else. And so on. Our feeling is that just about everything on PBS has deteriorated -- Masterpiece Theatre has degenerated in many instances to melodrama with bad casting, poor staging, god-awful camera work -- pore-&-nostril cinamatography I calls it -- where you are looking up somebody's hairy nose, or into his (or her) pores, or at his alcohol-veined face. We don't need to be that close, besides it destroys the sense of space. Your recent Jane Eyre was unusually good. I expected it to be awful, like a lot of the latter-day Jane Austins. The Brittish comedies are dreadful as a rule. Canned laughter is sickening & makes one want to throw up on the morons -- as for Dame Whatsit, what can we say? NOVA has slipped into children's fantasy with racing clouds & all sorts of camera-warps -- barely watchable these days. Formerly good mysteries such as Sherlock Holmes & Poirot fall into the clutches of New Types who think they can improve on them, thereby making them un watchable. What can we say about the so-called "Deep Analysis"??? Some of it is very good, some of it is boring, some of it is not so deep. You should do something about not letting guests interrupt. We want to here what the "experts" have to say & not listen to some loud prima donna walk over somebody who is less self-assertive. Another thing that is really irritating is that certain of your people, especially guests, are inclined to use the expression "people of colour". This is a racist expression. We are suprised that you, a Politically Correct.org, lets them get away with this. Does the expression mean that only black, brown & yellow people have colour?? And should therefore be taken more seriously. Does it mean that "white" is not a colour & therefore is not to be taken too seriously? I am white & red (Metchif). Most people do not recognize this, or know what it means. I have grown up with American Indians & other native peoples. It is interesting to me that people who have grown up experiencing prejudice can feel justified in expressing prejudice. "They owe us." This will not get anybody anywhere -- except backwards. Finally, PBS has got too Pop -- it wants to be something for everybody. This can't be done. If you spread yourself too thin, then you penetrate all the way to the surface. Perhaps this is the reason that so much of your programming is getting melodramatic, overdone & superficial. Finally, this gets to the New York Times. we gave up on them a long time ago. Too many of their correspondents are callow & inarticulate -- & too full of "Uhms". We do like Green from Iraq, however. As for the New York Review of Books, we stopped taking it. Do not like writers reviewing other writers. Too clubby. They all begin to sound alike. We have friends who do this. We do not yet think PBS's time is up, but there is a lot of room for improvement -- perhaps by turning back the clock a bit, & by not thinking you are indespensible. If we sound unduly harsh, perhaps it is because over the years we have come to expect more than you are delivering currently.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:35 PM	Oregon Bill : The News Hour is the ONLY news program on TV that is more than sound bites, greying for not. Also, while it is true that some of the entertainment programming is reruns of old series, many of those --however old-- are refreshing and welcome changes from commercial broadcasting's foulmouthed sitcoms and gory crime/legal series.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:30 PM	Allen : If cable TV has anything to offer that is remotely close to that offered by PBS, I for one haven't found it. The uninterrupted programming and the marvelous content is unmatched by anything else I’ve found in TV land. I hope PBS is with us for generations to come.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:29 PM	Dietmar : I live in Australia and watch The News Hour, NBR and Frontline on our local SBS (Special Broadcast Service) on a regular basis.PBR gives me an indepth unbiased sophisticated coverage of the USA and the world on par with other non commercials such as the Australia Broadcasting Commission ,BBC and CBC.Commercial news channel such as FoxNews has a background noise content of 80%, with 20% news content.Cut the noise out and you have an inferior and biased news service.KEEP UP THE BRILLIANT WORK PBS

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:27 PM	Swanee : Without PBS or the News Hour, I don't need TV. I'll get my news and entertainment from the newspaper and radio. I watch News Hour every day it's on. I watch it all the way through. I trust the coverage, and look forward to the balance of opinions. The other news programs, I click around, see what they've got to report, but rarely stay long. Yes, PBS is very important. Thank you for asking.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:24 PM	Dan : NPR news, Washington Week, and the Jim Lehrer News Hour are important news sources for us. We also watch Bill Moyers and Now. We like the tone of these programs and haven't seen any other sources that we like. Loss of any of these programs would leave us without the current information that we need as good citizens.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:14 PM	David : I love the quality of the journalism and production values of PBS. I live in Australia and I get the delayed telecast of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on SBS television. PBS documentaries are also well produced. Keep up the good work! Yes, PBS is necessary, especially when compared to the hollow alternatives.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:48 PM	Gregg Reitmeister : I beleive that PBS is still quite relavent. I am a regular viewer of the News Hour. I respect that it is both a reliable and accurate format. It does have the typical hype and censationalism that get from the networks and cable.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:46 PM	Kate Vanderheiden : Public TV and radio are the only non-print, non-Web sources of information and entertainment that consistently offer quality and do not insult my intelligence. The news and science programming is unbeatable, and I enjoy many of the entertainment offerings. My son grew up with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, Bill Nye, Reading Rainbow. We subscribe to cable, but find that I watch very little (it is truly amazing that, with all those channels, there is so little worth spending any valuable time watching!) But there's more! The sense of community that public media create is also very unique and important. I was surprised at the New York Times piece, and am glad to have this opportunity to comment (which I usually don't bother to do).

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:33 PM	Ruth F. DiGiuseppe : I cannot imagine the disappearance of the News Hour. It is my most reliable source of the most important news of what is actually going on around the world, not just in Washington DC or Hollywood. The in-depth examination of the significant issues of the day by experts with usually opposing opinions is really valuable. The New York Times has certainly shown the level of its intellect, and the article is an insult to educated and thoughtful people. Thanks, Jim and crew, for all the years of a wonderful program.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:24 PM	Marilyn Jacobs Furey : I was outraged to read that article in the "Times" about PBS. I mainly watch PBS as the rest of TV is as Newton Minnow said years ago "a wasteland" and now even more so than when he first said it. I have over 1000 channels and late at night there is only "paid programming" or ridiculous and boring programming. My only option besides PBS is the Food Channel or C-Span. Has this Mr. Mc Grath watched CNN, MSNBC and the commercial networks to see the "pap" they put on and that the commercials are more numerous than the program content. And he complains that the commercials on PBS are 30 seconds long!!! To view those commercials and to be able to view such programs as "Washington Week in Review", "Bill Moyers", "Frontline", "Expose" and the cultural programs such as "Live From Lincoln Center", "Masterpiece Theatre" and "American Masters". 30 seconds is a small price to pay for this programming. I have written a letter to the "Times", but do not know if it will reach them.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:24 PM	Megan : My three year old and i love to watch pbs. We love to watch are you being servered, antique roadshow or how about word girl or all the other great t.v. shows that pbs has. The other best thing about pbs is that once the t.v. show has started there are no t.v. commerical interruptions that you have to worry about.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:22 PM	Martha G : The News Hour and Washington Week are the two programs that convinced me to finally subscribe to DVR. If I am am not home from work in time to tune in, I feel that my day is incomplete. Those two programs alone provide the most in depth and unbiased summary of national and international news and politics available on television.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:17 PM	Megan : I love pbs i don't just watch the news how about all the kids shows that my three year old would be sad if she was not able to watch

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:59 PM	BB : I could not disagree more with the opinions expressed by Charles McGrath. He certainly does not speak for me. In terms of news analysis, no commercial TV station does it better than PBS. The answer to the author's query is not less federal funding for PBS, but more. I, myself, will continue to be a supporter of this precious national resource.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:56 PM	Eric : PBS is relevant. I enjoy watching PBS programming. I don't have cable. I would perfer watching The NewsHour, Washington Week, and Charlie Rose, among many other PBS programs. By observing the other news networks... FOX, with their conservative bias. CNN and MSNBC, with their liberal bias. Entertainment news programs and tabloid magazines, with their obsessions over the hollywood stars private lives, by wanting to turn it in to a public spectacle. For the New York Times to question PBS and NPR's relevancy... that's just wrong. Shame on you, New York Times! PBS and NPR have my full support 100%. Thanks, Eric from GA

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:55 PM	russell swanker III : Irrelevant? The night I heard this piece on the News Hour about the Times editorial, I saw Bill Moyers interview Sarah Chayes about what is really going on in Afghanistan. That was a riveting, gut wrenching and amazing interview. We are failing there due to our venture in Iraq, and it is plain as day – IF you have someone to tell the story. And only on PBS do you hear this type of thing. Go PBS. And NYT? Go to hell.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:55 PM	PM : The barbarians are pounding at the gate once more. Mr. McGrath is an advocate of the networks that have more "relevance" with more attention to blings, bangs, updates on celebrities, "debates" that consist of two advocates, one often a dope, trying to talk over each other, and avoid covering boring issues such as those addressed by PBS. How dull, to have unbiased, factual reporting on the news or coverage of cutting edge science. Mr. MGrath's concept of relevance is highly troubling.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:54 PM	Marilyn Jacobs Furey : I was outraged to read that article in the "Times" about PBS. I mainly watch PBS as the rest of TV is as Newton Minnow said years ago "a wasteland" and now even more so than when he first said it. I have over 1000 channels and late at night there is only "paid programming" or ridiculous and boring programming. My only option besides PBS is the Food Channel or C-Span. Has this Mr. Mc Grath watched CNN, MSNBC and the commercial networks to see the "pap" they put on and that the commercials are more numerous than the program content. And he complains that the commercials on PBS are 30 seconds long!!! To view those commercials and to be able to view such programs as "Washington Week in Review", "Bill Moyers", "Frontline", "Expose" and the cultural programs such as "Live From Lincoln Center", "Masterpiece Theatre" and "American Masters". 30 seconds is a small price to pay for this programming. I have written a letter to the "Times", but do not know if it will reach them.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:29 PM	robert henderson : I value PBS because it is the only avenue available to give me thoughtful and entertaining programming.When programs end,I'm always saying " that was good!" We need PBS!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:24 PM	Carol : I think that Mr. McGrath is not a PBS viewer. What would we do without Bill Moyers and other news programming like Frontline? Mr. McGrath suggests that the HBO series, The Tudors, is what Masterpiece Theater used to be. I have seen this series, one of the most poorly written and poorly acted drivel ever presented on television.How anyone could suggest that this dreadful series could in any way be considered superior to the amazing dramatizations of the novels of Jane Austen, currently being run on Masterpiece, utterly astounds me. And what about Sesame Street, Nova,Independent Lens and on and on.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:21 PM	RobinO : I would be lost without PBS. I feel I can trust it to be minimally biased and majorly informative. I definitely feel that PBS has a role in news that is critical. I wish there were other choices to hear balanced discussions about world affairs and news of importance. I will turn off celebrity news and confrontational panels. I do not subscribe to the premium catv channels and even though I get about 40 channels I am often left with nothing to watch. Also, my catv provider dropped one of my 2 PBS stations so now I cannot toggle between 2 on fund drive occasions plus it also had some British continuing programs that were not on the other station. I dislike reality shows, contest shows, law enforcement(except Monk), and all the "jump into bed" shows masquerading as dramas. I have to agree with some of the points in the NYT article about the need to update some programs. I watch News Hour, BBC news, Nightly Business Report, Washington Week, Antiques Roadshow, Masterpiece, & Great Performances on a regular basis. A lot of the topical programs/reports & Ken Burns are great, but sometimes Moyers & Now are a bit too unpleasant to make me a regular fan. So I guess my opinion is that PBS should take some advisement from the criticisms in the NYT article to improve. I do not object to commercial time at the beginning & end or after an hour of a long program.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:20 PM	norma henderson : PBS is more vital today than ever before. The programs provide in depth, accurate news, great scientific programming and wonderful drama. I f it were not for PBS I would not turn on the TV.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:14 PM	Donna Ascalon : Where else can we get indepth, balanced reporting on the major issues we face?

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:11 PM	Viewer : Lose PBS and The News Hour? Hope not!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:11 PM	wayne Ferrari : PBS in general and the News Hour in particular is a rare unbiased source of critical intelligence about our world. Its journalism is on par with NY Times. Both are necessary and appreciated.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:57 PM	Carey Inman : Is the New York Times still necessary?

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:51 PM	Cynthia : I watch PBS more than any network or cable channel. There is nothing on non-PBS channels that compares to the quality reporting of The NewsHour. And I cannot imagine life without Charlie Rose. NPR is grand, but it does not replace or supplant PBS.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:30 PM	Miriam E Wright : My only consistant TV viewing are PBS programs The News Hour, Bill Moyers Journal and Washington Week are my top choices. The in depth interviews by journalists who ask intelligent and respectful questions and respect the listener my reasons. Without PBS, I'd just give up on TV.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:25 PM	Glenn Hamilton : PBS is the only place you can get in-depth discussion of news items of national and worldwide interest. In addition. the entertaining programs of nature, science, and mystery cannot be excelled. Our evening starts with the Newshour everyday. We also look forward to the Friday Washington Week and the other fabulous programs. We are contributors to KQED, KTEH, and KCSM here in northern California. There would be a big blank if something happened to PBS. Keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:05 PM	Freshfry : I couldn't help but laugh....Do I want to watch Millionare Matchmaker, American Gladiator, reruns of Walker, Texas Ranger versus Bill Moyer's Journal.... especially when he has Kathleen Hall Jameison, Now, Frontline, and Independent Lens? Or how about the Nightly New with Brian Williams, a man who knows no limit on the excessive use of the English language, who continually refers every segment to their Nightly News website for more information; I don't want to go to their website...I want it right now or not at all.... And Katie Couric.... Too perky and she, like Mr. Williams and Mr. Gibson, just can't stop referring everything to their website...Mr. Leher, on the other hand gives us full, complete discussion on a variety of important subject, all with the analysis by Brooks and Shield every Friday.... Thank you PBS...if you weren't there, I'd go back to radio, as bad as that is....No, how about books?

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:04 PM	Jane M : It's shocking to learn that so-called educated people would suggest that PBC might be considered irrelevant. Best single reason: Jim Lehrer's Newshour -- journalism with intelligence, depth and integrity. Of course, diverse and quality programs such as Bill Moyers, Masterpiece Theatre and the other above-mentioned sort of programming is nothing less than vital for any civilization. The "No Child Left Behind/Dumbing Down of America" syndrome seriously applies to our adult population as well. It may not be necessary for the majority of a population to have an intellectual bent, but it is certainly critical that a society promote, at times demand, that people with average or better intelligence can develop and function as reasonable, intelligent adults. This is not to be confused with elitism. It is at the core the success or failure of a democrqcy. It seems the dominant media/entertainment sectors have excessive influence and perhaps actual desire to aim for the lowest common denominator. In my opinion, this is undermining the exercise of our very rights of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" we claim to hold so dear. Leave PBS alone.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:04 PM	Johann : I am astonished at the personal umbrage that Jim Lehrer seems to take at the McGrath article, since it includes a simple (but gratuitous) ageist comment on Jim, but does not really disparage the show. But since you have mounted this crusade, Jim: I watch The News Hour regularly, not because it’s so good but because everything else is so dreadful. It is possible that Jim is either conservative himself, or so fearful of being seen as liberal that he comes off that way. I find in the show an irritating tilt toward the right in what is vaunted as balanced reporting. “Newsmaker” interviews are too often limited to Administration shills who are allowed to present their cases to Jim without any meaningful comment or questioning. The possibility that fear is at work was most evident in the simperingly reverent commemoration of the 30th anniversary of Elvis Presley’s death. Ray Suarez closed the segment (as I recall) with the line, “Elvis Presley died thirty years ago today, of heart failure.” Well, that’s not a lie, but it is also very far from the whole truth. Whose exquisite sensibilities were in danger? And Mark Shields must go. How about giving David Brooks (a man I have come to respect as one of independent mind) a run for his money with someone like James Oliphant. Oliphant, aside from being my much-desired liberal Lochinvar, has the sense of humor the other two lack. You can often hear him on NPR. The network in general has long been a mixed bag for me. Too many British imports, as good as they are, and not enough Nova’s. My greatest disappointment, because it started with such great potential for excellence in home-grown programming, was the cancellation of the entertaining and benign “Tales of the City,” a cave-in to the voices of hate. I never again thought as highly of PBS as I had before. Happily, there was a cable network to pick it up. I take two important exceptions to the McGrath article: 1. Bill Moyers is magnificent. There is no one on TV or radio who will take on the difficult issues he tackles in such depth and with such clarity. His show and “American Exeprience” are the two best on Public Television. And 2., despite the fact that there is a food channel (which, for true foodies, is more often annoying than satisfying) the only shows for people who like to cook are on public television. I do believe that public television is relevant, and should have significant public funding. If only Edward R. Murrow were here to chime in. It is important, as well that it have subscribers. People should want to be a part of the noble enterprise that it once was, and I hope will be again.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:53 PM	Bob Underhill : Ditto..! ditto..! on all the good comments concerning all the PBS programs. You're quality staff & programing is the reason for 95% of your success. The other 5 % is because you have no competition..!! You know what I mean....What a shame broadcast TV quality has gone so far down. I don't have cable...as I don't see any quality there either. I get nothing but screaming, yelling, banging noises in the background of commericals & programs as well. Again what a shame.. & thank you for maintaining an adult format.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:52 PM	Shabbeer : Adding to my previous comment, News Hour and other news based programs are perhaps the only 'decent' and 'civil' debates I have seen. Just for this fact, I am a proud supporter.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:49 PM	Shabbeer : I am a legal recent (six years) immigrant to the United States. PBS and especially News Hour and Charlie Rose and other analytical programs are 'the source' for my consumption. The cable TV has its pulls, pushes and whims to satisfy and therefore are not true in presenting a 'correct' analysis. May be it is generationals shift that led Charles McGrath to write about the need. But then I am young and woudl dispute if this shift prompted such an article. Watching CNNs, FOXes, MSNBCs, ABCs and CBSs as newbie I was horrified at how the America I dreamed about was not right. Each one of these channels cater to a segment but not a complete analysis. Public broadcasting especially PBS and NPR are necessary to balance and to offer a 'journalistic' view as opposed to presenting 'their view'. I am a proud member and would be pained to see this taken off air. I strongly support continuance and would be eager to do my part if required. Thank you.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:47 PM	Matthew Gillmor : I find the PBS more relevant, poignant, unbiased, and thought provoking than any other TV news station/program. It is a shame that mainstream news outlets' content has become purely entertainment driven.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:40 PM	Elizabeth Shaw : I count absolutely on the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, along with Washington Week, for my main news and issue discussion for the week. I watch very little TV, but these programs are an important part of my everyday life (along with a few others, mostly PBS programs, such as Masterpiece Theater, some of the specials, Nova, etc.)

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:36 PM	Hope Lewis : ...and I forgot to mention "Washington Week in Review" with Gwen Ifill. Can't figure out DC without it!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:34 PM	Joy Mcabe : Every year I hear from politicians and pundits that we do not need PBS because we have hundreds of cable channels to suit our every preference. Every year I write the politicians to inform them that one must subscribe to cable TV and pay a hefty fee every month. they do not seem to be aware of this. I do not feel that I should waste my money on cable TV. I am a member of Channel 13 and send them a small donation each year, far less than if I paid cable each month. Thirteen plays the programs that I enjoy and vote for. while Cable shows whatever they choose. As anyone who looks at a TV schedule can attest, there really is nothing on network worth watching....well, perhaps two, sometimes three, programs in a week. PBS is a necessity in my life.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:33 PM	Hope Lewis : I am an African-American woman who was born in Brooklyn, New York. I am a member of the Sesame Street, Electric Company, Zoom, Masterpiece Theatre, Mystery, McNeil-Lehrer (still call it that), Nova, Frontline, Wall Street Week (with Louis Ruykeyser), Charlie Rose generation. I am now a law professor and human rights activist. I see the multicultural content, the fascinating substantive discussions, and the sheer enjoyment provided by PBS series on literature, the arts, sciences, and politics as essential educational resources. I use them as teaching tools in the classroom. Most importantly, they are available to all who have access to television. Keep up the good work; do not let financial pressure undermine the quality of your programming or the political risks you take.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:31 PM	MJofSanFran : PBS is the most constantly good quality television, I know. The lists of programs that I watch are diverse and always thought provoking: BBC News; The News Hour, Nature, Mystery!, etc. I have watched PBS from the 1950s to now. It is part of my everyday look at the world-I trust and appreciate PBS for World and National news. CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, etc no longer deal in News-they deal in propaganda and half-truths. Frontline, Now, Bill Moyer's , and even "Firing Line" are and were great programming. PBS is levant and relative.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:26 PM	Rev. Donald Morgan : The world would be a far less desirable place without the richness of the Newshour and the many other outstanding and penetrating features of public television. Most other TV is shallow and of far less value. Anone who cares about maintaining the quality of life in America will support and demand public television.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:25 PM	William Lee - California, USA : I consider our Public Broadcasting System a National Treasure. It's like bringing the Smithsonian Institute to the common man. Seems to me, PBS consistently brings top quality and uninterrupted programs in such broad arenas of subject and approach as to be important for the expanding culture of our nation. Unfettered as to content, PBS reaches both higher and wider for all to see.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:15 PM	Kilgore : We are dedicated PBS viewers. We do not have cable TV, and find the statewide and national coverage of life issues to be enduring! Thank you PBS for quality programming!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:14 PM	Ken Tipton : I have never written in support of any organization before...EVER...online or otherwise. We have chosen (wife and I ) to not have cable and view you courtesy of an OSU channel in Columbus, Ohio. For a a variety of reasons, need and necessity...we are on a budget...so, after looking, we have chosen you to help with our view of the world. All we ask is good information. We believe you do your best.We hear both sides...or more and real conversation and questions. We appreciate the lack of sensationalism. We enjoy the human, thoughtful, in depth (relative to other nightly news programs) presentation and aspect of your program. We are both college educated, grew up in simple settings, have worked our entire lives...and are now in our mid fifties. As simply put as I can . Our enjoyment of the Leherer Report...on a given day or in some cases, weeks after the specific show, has encouraged many long conversations...a wonderful, growing, learning thing for us. Thank you for the irreplaceable, enriching and as best you can, honest job you do for us. Ken Tipton

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:00 PM	P Thomas : At one time, PBS was the only alternative to commercial television. Today, there is a glut of cable stations. The problem is that you have to pay for those stations. While PBS depends on contributions, you are not prevented from watching if you can't afford to donate. I had times when I had no extra money and I'm sure there are others like me. Today, I can afford to donate and do. PBS relevant? In my opinion, yes.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:54 PM	Allan Cox : Please; Please keep PBS, whatever it takes. I watch about 7 hours of television each week: Five of those watching and listening to Jim, Gwen, Judy, Margaret, Ray, Jeffrey, and many regular fascinating guests, who give much needed informative and unbiased reports and commentary on the news of the day (albeit 18 hours later as I live in Oz and watch the Newshour on our own form of PBS, viz. SBS at 5pm Tuesday to Saturday). The (always good-natured) banter between Mark and David on various reporters' points of view provides penetrating and knowledgeable discourse on things that really matter, particularly in the politics of the US and significantly, the current unfathomable (to outsiders at least) primaries and cuacuses just to elect a proponent for the election of ......? Likewise, Susan has a thorough understanding in the state of the (poor) health of 'US' with a (passionate) compassion for those in need. Paul's tongue-in-cheek exposes on the economy make it easy for all to understand the intricacies, dynamics, pitfalls, and mysteries of what really goes on in the daily lives of ordinary people. I'm absolutely fascinated by Linda's depth of knowledge, and clear articulation of the many convolutions before the Supreme Court over interminable questions of that most confounding document on earth - the US Constitution, albeit, a book called 'A Country With No Name' might suggest even greater issues to resolve, like, what is the name of the place most people call 'the USA'? So, please; please keep the Newshour on the air, Forever.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:53 PM	Daniel J. Andrews : I have been a PBS viewer for decades, but it was only within the last 3-4 years that I "discovered" The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. I watch virtually no other news source since none -local, network or cable - is able to provide the unbiased, in-depth reporting provided by The News Hour. I supplement this show with Washington Week, Frontline, and a host of other programs that commercial television is unwilling to or incapable of providing. When one adds in the "entertainment" programming such as Austin City Limits, Masterpiece Theater, Mystery et al., there is no comparison. To suggest that PBS is no longer relevant merely means that the author of the piece is, himself, irrelevant. Thank you and keep it up!!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:49 PM	Paul Hoodman : My responce would be are cable programs relevant? They are not even close to being relevant as compared to PBS programing. I've been a member of KCET/KOCE for a number of years and will continue same. I especially enjoy World News,The News Hour, Tavis Smiley and a host of others. Please keep up the great work.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:34 PM	Elly : PBS is not only one of the most relevant in program content, but I feel it is the most believable and trustworthy. PBS could not be more necessary to me. I watch it all the time.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:22 PM	Thomas Benson : The NEWSHOUR is the best news show on television by a wide margin, offering reliable, balanced, intelligent, and civil reporting, analysis, and discussion five nights a week. Our family has watched it since its beginnings. The NEWSHOUR has maintained its standards as network news has softened, and as FOX news peddles right-wing propaganda as if it were journalism. Public television maintains a high level of excellence despite continuing threats to its independence, continuing competition from cable and the Internet, and inadequate public funding. It is an important part of the social capital of this country. We would all be poorer without it.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:17 PM	Ignacio 999 : Public radio and TV irrelevant? In no other station one can listen and watch a good program without commercials and with the variety of comemtators from all walks of life. Commercial TV brings its oen personnel to make comments but they are not fresh and are given the time to explain what we do not know. Academics, businesspersons,politicians and other commentators add another dimension to pbs that no other network does. If you have money, give it to pbs. It is dough well needed!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:13 PM	Michael Murphy, Lubbock, TX : I have been watching PBS since 1974. Many people do not realize that there are low income people, retirees, or simply those people who do not watch TV very often, who do NOT have, nor care to have cable television. Aside from NBC's "Meet the Press" or ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" (both with commercial interruptions), there is no comprehensive television news coverage with uninterrupted thorough and intelligent discussion except for PBS and especially "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" or “Washington Week.” This is why I watch these types of programs. I also think that there is other programming on PBS that is critically acclaimed, outstanding, and much more enjoyable to watch than many of the programs that I have seen on commercial television. If I have a criticism, it is with what I see as growing and creeping commercialism from the many corporate sponsors who fund a major portion of public television. While I appreciate their sponsorship notices at the beginning or the end of the program, I also worry that they are, psychologically at least, intruding into viewer’s mind with the blatant advertising approaches of the kind that we see on commercial television. There still is a place for public television in the American mass communications system, and it should be maintained for years to come.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:13 PM	Louise : I appreciate PBS very much. Jim Lehrer comes into our home 5 days a week and we watch their special news casts as well. I value the high quality programing such as the several outstanding Ken Burns series. Great programing for children too and other helpful educational series such as French in Action and Destinos. Masterpiece theater is much enjoyed. I do not appreciate the NYTimes negativity toward PBS.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:06 PM	Yale B. Joseph : If there were no PBS, where in the world would we find balanced newscasts in depth? Where would we find a science program like NOVA? Where would we find symphonic programs, or opera, or even fine jazz performances? Where would we find politics discussed in an unbiased way? Where would we get business news that's better than the Journal? In fact, to even hold PBS open to a discussion of its relevance is mere foolishness.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:05 PM	greg corkum : pbs is as important as has ever been-childrens programs-parents know that children will not subjected to ads for cereals etc-programs like the nightly business report-the news hour-mclaughlin group-now-washinton week in review-are not equaled in broadcast or cable tv-television worth watching is television worth paying for-i not only a viewer but also a donor and volunteer at my local station-opb in portland, oregon-pbs will thrive and grow

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:01 PM	R.M.Morrison : As a regular viewer of the "Newshour" with Jim Lehrer (M-F), and the previous MacNeil-Lehrer Newshour, etc. for more years than I can recall, I have never found anything superior which is available to the Public without additional subscription on a local TV channel. I have become a supporter of my local PBS Station in Milwaukee,Wi, because of THIS program. Many other vision expanding, as well as enjoyable, programs became part of my life through PBS. Go, PBS, Go!!!!!!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 04:00 PM	James Morrison : It would be folly to eliminate, or even change substantially, The Newshour. I'm like countless other Americans who depend on it for sober analysis in an environment not (greatly) affected by commercial considerations. The Newshour feature I like best is the political analysis, with Shields and Brooks (Brooks has been a wonderful addition to the team; but where's Tom Oliphant lately?--he was a wonderful fill-in for Mark Shields. The segment is most effective when Jim Lehrer is the anchor. And that brings me to an issue that has worried (!) both me and my wife, Mary, for some months: Jim Lehrer is getting a little long in the tooth, and won't want to stay in harness forever. Who will replace him when he's gone? My favorites (in no particular order) would be Judy Woodruff, Margaret Warner, Gwen Ifill, and Jeffrey Brown. Any of them would do a wonderful job; maybe some combination, sort of like the old Newshour with McNeil and Lehrer. I could write much more, but at this point, it seems a tad redundant. James Morrison

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:58 PM	Catherine Cronquist Browning : I'm a relatively young viewer of PBS. I'm in my mid-twenties, but I've still spent more than two decades watching PBS programming, from Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers as a child to Frontline and Charlie Rose as an adult. At all ages, I've watched the NewsHour, either with my parents or alone, and always found it to be the most in-depth, critically focused news program available, head and shoulders above CNN, Fox, or local cable news, superior even to the BBC World News, which summarizes but rarely provides the same kind of analysis. I've also watched PBS in a variety of markets--not only Southern California, where I grew up, and Northern California, where I now reside, but in northern Idaho, where I was a teenager and college student and where it was often very difficult to get access to the kind of programming PBS provides from any other source. As a young adult I support PBS financially when I can, and as a voter and word-of-mouth promoter all the time. There are problems with PBS, and there are some aspects of the Times' criticism that I agree with. PBS is, as the article points out, starting to ape more successful, less thoughtful programming from other channels--only two nights ago I watched a program on my local PBS station (KQED in the San Francisco Bay Area) about whether or not there is a Loch Ness monster, which was, frankly, silly, even though a lot of effort was expended to make the point that such a thing is wildly unlikely. I agree with the Times article that programs like America's Ballroom Challenge and Keeping Up Appearances really don't further PBS' mission--even though I admit to enjoying both. These problems of creating a lineup of entirely "quality" programming, however, are natural; I recognize that PBS must negotiate between educational and analytical programming and retaining viewership with substantive entertainment. It is telling that the Times criticizes PBS both for "mustiness" and for "pop knockoffs"--clearly, if PBS seems to be both, that simply demonstrates the fine line it must walk. PBS does seem to have much more corporate support and even advertising spots than it did when I was a child, but it's still far more watchable than regular commercial television. I disagree with the Times' claim that "[e]very year . . . it gets a little harder" to find the money to support PBS. As someone who has watched a lot of PBS for several decades, I can testify that pledge breaks were just as obnoxious when they interrupted Big Bird and Ernie for me twenty-odd years ago as they are when they interrupt Rick Steves today. It's always been difficult to fund PBS, and it always will be, but that doesn't mean it isn't "relevant." Finally, I want to add that the Times article has the feel of having been written by people who have been sampling PBS in the last month or two, but haven't really seen more than that. For example, they criticize "Masterpiece" for turning to all-Jane-Austen, but that's just the current set of "classic" shows. Only last season Masterpiece (Theater) produced a lovely adaptation of Nina Bawden's "Carrie's War," a gripping version of Trollope's "He Knew He Was Right," and a masterful adaptation of Dickens' "Bleak House." Similarly, the Times criticizes the NewsHour for retaining Jim Lehrer for so long--despite the fact that evening news anchors often have long careers--without noting the increasingly pivotal roles played in the program by Gwen Ifill and Ray Suarez in particular. I could quibble with the terms of the Times article at greater length, but suffice it to say that I consider PBS' role in our society to be as crucial and relevant today as it has ever been. Nevertheless, it is always beneficial for PBS and its viewers to reevaluate its programming and funding choices and its mission, which, as I've learned while watching, can only benefit from critical reflection and self-examination.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:54 PM	Louise : I appreciate PBS very much. Jim Lehrer comes into our home 5 days a week and we watch their special news casts as well. I value the high quality programing such as the several outstanding Ken Burns series. Great programing for children too and other helpful educational series such as French in Action and Destinos. Masterpiece theater is much enjoyed. I do not appreciate the NYTimes negativity toward PBS.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:53 PM	divinia : I could not live happy without OPB. They excite my brain continually. I've always found the accuser is in fact guilty of what they accuse someone of. The Times surely fits this profile.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:52 PM	Sally Jones : We have watched the Newshour for years, and always have our TV set up to record it each afternoon, so we won't miss it. In today's news environment, yours is the only voice of sanity and objectivity available. Of course in the mornings we watch as much as we can stand of Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc., but they insist on so much drivel that we don't last long. We so appreciate your newsmaker interviews and your relevant topics on every show. Thank you and keep up the great work you do. Very sincerely, Sally Jones

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:51 PM	Sue Mieske : PBS is the only channel that we ever watch anymore. The News Hour is by far the most indepth and unbiased news available on TV. We are individual prescribers, but we also want our tax money to support such a fine network.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:34 PM	Richard Kruger : I feel that the New York Times is suffering from a reality gap. PBS is the bench mark against which all other similar entities strive to obtain. The quality of the news reporting is unparalled! Fair balance is the stock and trade of PBS news programs. Unless physcially impossible, both sides of an isssue are presented and given equal time to state their responses. The news is presented in a manner that is consonant with being the best news "outlet" there is. The brief "ads" are a reality; Botanists have not yet found the tree upon which money grows! PBS' programming appeals to virtually all age groups, cable and direct TV services do not. Richard Kruger

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:33 PM	Richard J Fox : I find the NYT article regarding the News Hour incredible. Are we to watch Fox News and all the unenlightened news sources on cable and print. PBS is the only remaining news source out here. We have suffered through the Judy Miller debacle that allowed Dick Cheney to declare on Meet the Press that there were WMD in Iraq.Followed by William Safire's 23 opinion colums regarding why we should invade Iraq. Followed up with David Brooks and now Bill Kristol. Now we have the NYT consolidating the Conservatives, withwhat looks like a errant article on John McCain.Please join me boycotting the NYT for the next month. Thank you.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:32 PM	Rod : Dear Sir or Madam, I believe PBS is wonderful. It offers excellence across the spectrum of its products. NOTE: Clearly, it is in a class by itself. Thank you PBS, Rod.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:31 PM	Mark : Is PBS still relavent? As long as it provides superior journalism on the Newshour and Charlie Rose, there is no question in my mind. My father (right), Mother (left), and I (center) have differing views on economics and politics but we are all avid viewers. They watch the TV version while I track it online. And my children? The children's fare is their top choice. We invariably choose PBS Sprout when making our on demand choice. I must admit that I do scan the NY Times and WSJ for newsflashs, but no longer rely on either for "journalism". So they are still relevant too. However, the Economist is far superior (especially on analysis) and is my newspaper of choice.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:28 PM	Timothy A. Meltzer : I am writing because I disagree with the premise of the New York Times article "Is PBS Still Necessary?" The article concludes, among other things, that public radio is a valuable means of public discourse, but PBS is not. On the contrary, PBS remains one of the few forms of media in our culture that consistently delivers in depth analysis of major news stories. Pick any broadcast of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, and you will hear from both sides, or several sides, on any given issue. No other news program, whether on a commercial network or cable, does this so consistently, and fairly. I believe public television represents just one of many essential attributes of our great Nation, and of any free society. I have watched, with great delight, at least three of the Ken Burns' programs, and regularly watch other programs on PBS. They are universally more informative than anything else on television. I am in my mid 50's, and have been watching PBS since I was in my twenties (even when the primary news program was the McNeil/Lehrer Newshour). There have been enough inroads on our free, fair and diverse discourse. I think it would be a great mistake to cut off or reduce public funding of PBS, Sincerely, Timothy A. Meltzer

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:26 PM	Michael and Felicia Pollock : I am 90 and my wife is 87. We are distressed to read stories that imply that PBS may lose its public funding and poaaibly be abolished. We depend on the unbiased analysis of the Lehr Hour, the Moyers Journal and others. Also the wonderful entertianment value of Masterpiece Theater and the other British imports.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:24 PM	Cathie Morgan : PBS provides the best programming anywhere. Where else can one find balanced journalism such as one obtains on Newshour? All the programs are top rate. I have been a member for years, and will continue to tune in on a regular basis.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:20 PM	J. D. Roth : PBS is informative and thought provoking and gives in-depth news coverage. I can't imagine my life without it. I think my local PBS does an exceptional job of scheduling a variety of programming.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:07 PM	Rosie Stephens : Without The News Hour, Washington Week, Moyer's Journal, NOW, I fear I would be lost and unable to carry on an intelligent conversation. NPR is on from the time the alarm clock wakes me and my OPB station is far and above superior to any other station for news and entertainment.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:05 PM	Alarmed in Oregon : I am so angry at the re-emergence of this thinly-disguised effort to do in PBS before the End of the Error...just the price of one nasty big bomber would support PBS nicely. Sorry, I can't write any more; it would be completely unsuitable for this forum.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:58 PM	Barbara Hilbourn : PBS is definitely needed. We watch the News Hour every night it's on because it's the only news program that devotes more than 5 seconds to a story to give us complete information. We need this to make informed choices, not only about the election but also on many other matters. We also enjoy American Experience, Masterpiece Theatre and so many other programs. Please don't let anyone convince you PBS isn't necessary.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:51 PM	linda keenan : i wrote this on the huffington post about childish cable news anchors, and as you can see, the newshour has a very young demo in my house. the link is below if anyone wants to read it but here's the part where i talk about "jim ware's" biggest fan. Question 3. This person is a huge admirer of the sober, thoughtful reporting of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and watches it religiously. Toddler or Anchor? Answer: Toddler. My own junior news junkie loves when Jim "Ware" does the "wee-cap" of the news at the end. When the show lists the Iraq war dead, he says "Jim Ware is sad now." He also loves substitute anchor Gwin Eye-full, and analysis by David Bwooks from the New York Times. Mommy prefers to kick it old-school liberal with Mark Shields. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-keenan/toddler-or-anchor-i-rep_b_78750.html

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:48 PM	Gary Anderson : I certainly think PBS is necessary. I find more and more network news being influenced by their owners. I want news that is more investigative and unbiased and believe PBS is the place to do that. It provides most of the viewing that I watch and I continue to trust them more than anyone else to give me truthfulness in broadcast news. I am a supporter of PBS and NPR and will continue to be.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:48 PM	David Mangurian : The NY Times is wrong! If cable channels could be doing the same programming PBS does, they would. But they don't. Where else except PBS do you find "Bill Moyer's Journal" and "Frontline," two of the best shows on TV and they only news magazine shows that have covered the Iraq war and the "reasons" for it in depth. Likewise, "The News Hour" is the only prime time news show covering the news in depth and without bias. The interviews are not the "Got ya" interviews on the cable news channels (and even on network news programs), not do the talking heads yell at each other. These interviews are more informative than any others on television. I still watch some network news in addition to PBS when there are hot stories, because their take is different. The main reason to keep PBS on the air is don't mess with a good thing. David Mangurian, masters in journalism, Columbia School of Journalism, 1966.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:42 PM	Jill Hubbs : What sets PBS apart from all the rest of the broadcasting industry is much more than the outstanding quality, educational and diverse programming. What makes PBS rise above all the rest is the PBS commitment to making a positive difference in the lives of citizens through outreach services that touch lives beyond the broadcast. PBS education and outreach staff work all over the United States, helping to improve literacy in communities through the PBS / CPB intiative Ready To Learn and "Raising Readers." There are numerous health initiatives in cities all across the United States that were conducted by PBS stations. Teachers and students benefit not only from the OUTSTANDING curriculum-based programs that meet state and national curriculum standards, but also from a variety of outreach services that offer educators profesional development, offer those who need to complete their educations an opportunity to earn a G.E.D., and offer parents, preschool teachers and caregivers free resources to help young children learn. The PBS Web site is a wealth of information and valuable resources for life-long learners of EVERY age! That is just a small sampling of what PBS stations are doing to improve their communities and make a positive difference in the lives of citizens. Anyone who is not sure about the value of PBS should look at individual station Websites to see what is happening in communities all over the United States - because of PBS. There are amazing things happening because of PBS stations. There was a tagline on PBS a few years ago that said "If PBS doesn't do it, who will?" No truer words were ever spoken! No other media outlet or media organization sends teams of staff members to utilize their programming to make a difference, to help children and families learn, to raise awareness about issues of relevance to all Americans. PBS is a unique treasure in the American landscape. Sometimes we take things for granted that we have come to know and depend on... 99% of every American household owns at least one television - and can learn from and enjoy PBS over the air, free. PBS is a treasure worth preserving for all of us who are life-long learners and for future generations who deserve to enjoy and learn from the riches that PBS offers for everyone. Jill Hubbs, Pensacola, Florida

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:40 PM	Katherine Fish : I think the New York Times recognizes it can't compete with the quality and the straight forward message that PBS gives to its viewers, because of the NYT own self-inflicted limitations... I have been watching PBS in the Philadelphia area since its inception, and that was a long time ago. My parents got me hooked. PBS is for people who are "Thinkers and Doers." PBS has come along way. It gives its audience an up-to-the-minute view of what is really going on in this country, and in the world. I recently watched the Bill Moyers' show when he interviewed Ms. Chasey, and what an eye opener. I watched NOW and how the U.S. Congress pads its coffers with "ear marks." More Americans MUST begin to watch this station in order to get down-to-earth, informative, and intelligent information as to what is really going on in this global world we live in. It's beyond disturbing to hear first hand that the U.S. government is funding Pakistan with $1 billion a year, to fight the Taliban, and then Pakistan turns around and funds the Taliban efforts. Just as tiring to hear is that Afghany leaders are putting Taliban leaders in governmental positions throughout Afghanistan, and both are bullying the Afghan people. PBS has placed a glaring light on the sinister behavior in our own government, and its prevailing attitude of sheer laziness, incompetence, and "what's in it for me." I was so thankful to see that the Investigative Journalist is making a comeback. This country desparately needs people who are dedicated to uncovering the truth, and exposing those who are responsible for their dishonest behaviors. PBS Rocks! With Great Respect, Katherine Fish

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:39 PM	Theo Antheil : The notion that PBS wouldn't be there for us people who value the programs, the fair and well researched presentation of the news and world developments is one that I do not want to contemplate. It would be a great loss. Surely PBS is a model of where braodcasting should be headed. Its standards are appreciated and let us not go backwards.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:37 PM	Tina Wake : Is PBS necessary? Yes, it is very necessary. There so many great programs available to both adults and children. It is difficult to understand why such a question is even asked in this age of the "dumbing of America". We need more PBS and much less of what is available on cable and regular television. If there is no more PBS, may as well turn off the set permanently. What a great loss it would be if it were to happen. We need Masterpiece Theater, Nova, Now, Bill Moyers, the Jim Lehrer Report, etc. and the special programming that is presented from time to time.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:29 PM	steve chiu : As a Chinese living in Canada, I think PBS is indispensible in understanding the American belief / culture! People could be misled by the administration. Luckily, we have PBS to put things in the proper prospective. Keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:28 PM	Patricia Shaye : Where else can we see the wonderful "Masterpiece Theater", "Mystery", and the delightful British comedy shows. Where else is the equal of the programming availabe on PBS to be found? It is a wasteland out there in tvland. The News Hour is the only truly fair and balanced news program on television. It is unthinkable that anyone would want to eliminate the public television channels.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:18 PM	Mariei : The nature of fund-raising at PBS has let me to believe that PBS's days are numbered. For the most part, I avoid programming and making donations during the fund-raising periods. However, I will continue to support PBS as long as it is the single best and most accessible source of news, information and analysis. For example, the NEWSHOUR is, bar none, the most thorough reporter of current news. There, my need to hear different points of view is satisfied. The analysis usually answers the questions that arise in the reports. As regards the professionalism of the staff, I have found myself wishing that the entire country were like the broadcast of the NEWSHOUR. Charlie Rose gives me unparalleled access to movers and shakers. On Chariie Rose I get to hear from them directly rather than getting second-hand reports or commentary. As one who has tried to better myself with limited resources, I have found PBS provides access to excellence which otherwise might not have been available to me. So long as there is more good than bad on PBS, I will support it fervently.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:14 PM	Lee Traven : In response to your article asking if PBS is still relevant: Yes, it certainly is. I find that I watch PBS more than any other channel. C-Span is the next most watched channel in my house, but it would come about four levels below PBS. Do you realize the variety offered through PBS by quality journalists. I don't think I would have TV without PBS availability. I know that the government is always threatening to cut funding, but look at the state of our present government. We can fund war, but what can we do to uplift the culture of our country and offer educational oppotunities for our children? I am a long time reader of The New York Times, both during the 38 years I lived in Manhattan and while I attended graduate school at Columbia University as well as while I have been living in Wisconsin. I have also served on the Board of Wisconsin Public Broadcasting since retiring to Wisconsin. Please let us not lower our intellectual vision! Remember that Wisconsin Public Radio has been long known as the "Ideas Network". Let's not cut off the ideas disseminated through quality journalism. Lee Traven

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:09 PM	patrick hughes : Newshour provides the only real, in depth news on TV. Fox reports, distorts and turns every issue into a matter of taking a political side rather than providing a clear, detailed reporting that actually allows veiwers to decide based of information. We have 80 stations on our cable we watch WOSU TV at least 60% of the time.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:02 PM	Nicholas V. McCausland : Re: "Is PBS Necessary?", it is. Many of my friends tell me they turn to foreign sources for news since U.S. sources, mainly controlled by right-wing media corporations not only focus a lot on entertainment, but they also suppress and do not report news critical of their goals. Thus PBS Lehrer Newshour often is the only U.S. source of some news, and even it occasionally avoids controversial news, which, fortunately, often then gets covered on Friday evenings by programs like "Washington Week","Now" and the Moyer "Journal". An improvement on the Lehrer Newshour would be for it to modify its rule of never challenging people being interviewed, even when they make outrageous and/or false statements.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:59 PM	WMcBride : The Lehrer Report is the most important program being carried by PBS. Whenever I'm at home it is an automatic viewing-frequently on a daily basis. This is followed in importance by Washington Week.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:46 PM	Barbara Moskal : I've watched the NewsHour for many years. I don't watch any other news. I depend on PBS and the NewsHour to keep me informed with objective reporting and not opinion.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:44 PM	Rev. Don Woodford : It saddens me and angers me that quality is once more being set aside for cheap and shoddy. For years I have relied on PBS for news, information and entertainment and have never been disapointed. Their should be no question about increasing government support for quality programing that raises life standards instead of lowering them. But the answer is no. And so we get a tiny increase in advertising time which does not block the program content. In response to mr. mcgrath's question "is PBS still necessary?" the answer is now more than ever or perhaps the question should be restated "Is charles mcgrath Still Necessary?". Without Jim Lehrer and the wonderful people that work with him and Charlie Rose and his crew and Frontline, Nova, American Experience, life would become a lot less interesting because they add debth to understanding our existence. They are friends that I will not lose! PBS, Checks in the mail! Keep up the wonderful work and to the new york times I have had thoughts of subscribing from time to time, forget it!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:28 PM	Mike : The relevance of PBS and NPR has never been greater than during the last 7 years. At our house, we watch the news on PBS every evening. The commercial television station news "shows" are ludicrous circuses of vanity and ignorance. Each evening, the Daily Show and the Colbert Report (which we turn to after the PBS nightly news) provide a brilliant analysis and critique of the depths to which commercial television news has sunk. The necessity of independent, non-commercial television and radio has never been more clear than during the tyranny of a lying president and his administration. Without Frontline and Bill Moyers' Journal, how would we really know the true depth and breadth of the corruption of our federal government? It will take generations to correct the side effects of the last 7 years. Our nation's children have been taught that lying and corruption are to be expected from government. PBS and NPR are shining lights in this darkness. By the way, the hubris of the New York Times in questioning the relevance of PBS and NPR is almost infinite. The Times has become just one more shill for a lying president and his administration. We are in the fifth year of the most disastrous war in the nation's history thanks to the complete failure of the New York Times to fulfill its duties to the nation. Relevant indeed! Thanks a thousand and more times to PBS and NPR! Mike St. Petersburg Florida

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:22 PM	Phoebe Farnam : I concur with the vast majority of opinion about the vital role PBS fills in our daily lives. THe Lehrer News Hour is far superior to formats on commercial networks - even those headed by distinguished news journalists. Specifically, I would like to rebut those critics who commented about the increasing number of "commercials" attached to programs. It should be made clear that these are merely acknowledgements of those sponsors. Sponsors are entitled to be recognized for their contributions to public television and are entitled to have their products and services identified. MOST IMPORTANT! THESE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ARE NOT CALLS TO ACTION AS WOULD BE THE CASE ON COMMERCIAL TELEVISION. There is a distinct difference.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:21 PM	Carolyn Newcombe\ : Thank God for PBS!!! I'm one of the baby boomers who has watched PBS most of my life and have been a member for years. The"News Hour" is an essential part of my day. It is my primary source of national and international news. It is the one hour of the day I make sure to I tilt my wheelchair back and pay attention to what is going on in the world. My comments will probably be like thousand of others. In an age of glits and glimmer, PBS is one beacon of intelligent broadcasting. Obviously it comes down to funding and what is in the public interest. In my estimation PBS is worth every penny American taxpayers put into it. Yes, PBS is relevant. Carolyn Newcombe Mansfeild, Connecticut

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:19 PM	BenitaM : I watch the show nightly for a rounded perspective on the news as well as issues that are not likely to be seen /heard in other venues.(Poetry, philosophy,interesting inventions, e.g.)Also follow the Friday evening commentary and journalistic shows.There is always an attempt to be balanced,something that is missing in many other broadcasts!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:11 PM	chris : For many years we did not have cable or satellite TV, but we watched the News Hour (with snowy reception), as well as other PBS programs (Charlie Rose, children's programming, etc.). Recently we added a satellite connection, and now have hundreds of crystal-clear channels to choose from. But we have to say that, despite the expansion of our options, we still regularly watch the News Hour, and our son still watches Fetch! wtih Ruff Ruffman. PBS remains our home base. Although CNN is wonderful for campaign coverage, for instance, there is nothing that replaces the analysis on PBS: one does not find political programs with silly titles such as "Ballot Bowl" on PBS, and the dignified commentary offered by Shields and Brooks is never surpassed by CNN's self-styled "greatest team" on TV.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:06 PM	Charlie Schott : I was more than surprised that anyone would questions the relevance of PBS and the News Hour. I don't anywhere other the PBS (News Hour & BBC), Morning Edition or All Things Considered where I can find such even-handled and in-depth reporting. That's where we go to find news - not entertainment.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:00 PM	Stephanie Matz : The News Hour is the only reliable, unbiased source of information available. By reporting stories in depth--rather than in 45 second segments--News Hour reporters are given the scope and time to get to the real issues behind the news, look at all sides of a story, and follow up later when necessary. I trust The News Hour. I trust no other news "show" because that's what they've become--marketing and entertainment with "news" thrown in, often with a cute or even harmful spin. The News Hour is truly one of the last bastions of good journalism.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:58 PM	sydney havemann : I totally disagree with the Times' article. PBS is almost the only channel that I watch. Their news is head and shoulders above the commercial channels and their entertainment programming is actually entertaining. Keep it going.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:58 PM	Donald Gilson : PBS is the reason I don't shoot my TV set. I've enjoyed countless hours of PBS watching. Most other TV programming is just so much junk interrupted by inane, lewd and silly Ads.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:47 PM	Patricia Hart : What would TV be without PBS? Boring. I am an avid viewer. Where else can you view accurate information and entertaining programs for all ages!!!! Please stay the course, thank you soooooooo much

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:46 PM	Joe Harris : I watch pbs when I want to grow or better myself. I watch other programming for a laugh. Just like I listen to NPR to form my own opinions, but the only times i listen to other radio stations is to find out what my opinion is 'supposed to be'.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:46 PM	Bob : I find the questioning of PBS's usefulness insulting and a purposeful attempt on the part of New York Times to avoid the far more relevant question of its own usefulness. Despite a significant history as a news provider to America's largest city and the world, its new ownership brings its obfectivity and its worthiness as a serious news provider into question. If we are going to discuss something truly meaningful we should talk about the significant decrease in proffessionalism of virtuallly all of the news nets, especially the Times. PBS, is the only one left that provides insightful relevant news that those in power (i.e. this administration and multinational corporations) would rather we did not know about.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:46 PM	Mary and Ken : My family has supported PBS stations for at least 30 years when our son was watching Sesame Street and MisterRogers Neighborhood. We turn to PBS television almost every day for the best source of news, sciene, history, music, and educational programming. With over 100 TV channels provided by our local cable company, many nights we find there is simply nothing of interest to view. Thankfully, PBS usually has something to offer. We will continue to support public television, and consider it one of the best investments we can make. The NY Times isn't always correct, and they made a mistake on this issue.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:45 PM	Susan Taylor Wehren : My husband and I find that the only television we really want to watch is that on PBS. We have the basic cable service (about 10 channels of programming and four sales channels) and we live in Hawaii. We find that often the News Hour gives us the only real national news we can watch to get a complete report of events of the day. We would be very upset to lose PBS and the programs offered locally and nationally.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:45 PM	Bob D'Errico : I am a "news junky." For me, this is a 12 month a year avocation but it is never more evident than during presidential campaign seasons. My wife is amusingly accepting as I pour over reruns of shows on CNN, MSNBC and the like at 1am. However, as enlightening as those shows are, none of them offers the in-depth reporting, discussions and views of The News Hour. I think it's simply not possible for a commercial station to probe as deeply as pbs. Someone like Larry King may do on a single topic but The Newshour does it consistently on many topics. The Times article is completely without true merit. LONG LIVE PBS!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:44 PM	douglas strong : the times has lost touch with with ordinary people. they seem to write these articles from their ivory white towers. pbs and c-span are the only bright lights in a sea of garbage.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:42 PM	Richard : With the advent of television we had a new exciting medium. In Great Britain this was state owned for a long time. The BBC sought to inform, educate, set high standards and entertain within prescribed limits. Commercial television was allowed much later and from then on standards dropped. In the USA there were no standards right from the beginning and low quality programmes were created to match the low quality demand. From this one beacon of light shone out brightly. It was PBS and to this day it has maintained its standards of excellence. It is an institution of which America can be proud. It is fitting, but sad, that the New York Times should want to question its continuance.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:41 PM	C. Martinez : Watching cable news is like being the target in a Nintendo game. There are data bits thrown out but never linked, pictures of events presented for shock value but rarely discussed at length, or heaven help us, discussed to death (movie star offspring) when the value of said discussion is nil. The promise of "news to come" is interspersed with a spate of louder commercials, followed by another round of meaningless same. Attempt to watch a morning "show" on regular commercial tv. How many agitated, loud, thirty second non-events can one person take? No wonder our kids' attention span is so short. How are they to compete in a serious world when such shallow programming is an avaiable daily refuge? For the New York Times description of PBS as musty, read thoughtful, which is slower, less hypnotic and more mindful. If you prefer to be a target, watch cable. If you prefer to be included in meaningful discussions about our real world, watch PBS, and keep the Lehrer New Hour on your radar at all times.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:29 PM	from West Chester : PBS irrelevant? The great programs I enjoy are to numerous to mention. Bill Moyer's journal last night was great.PBS has my support.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:22 PM	Gene Clarke : I depend on and support PBS and NPR as my main source for news, analysis, and commentary. High quality programs like The News Hour, Nightly Business Report, Frontline, Now, Bill Moyer’s Journal, the BBC News along with Independent Lens and American Experience cannot be found anywhere on the cable networks. PBS is both essential and irreplaceable. However, having stated my support, PBS is at a cross roads and to remain relevant the network will have to break new ground and take programming risks. For example, Bill Moyer’s Journal teaming up with Expose brings a powerful new perspective to this program. The News Hour and Nightly Business Report would do well by also experimenting with like partnerships to expand their coverage, add depth, and give viewers more variety to keep us thinking and on our toes. Thank you PBS!!! Gene Clarke

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:19 PM	jonQpublic : Re: Is PBS relevant? For those of us that prefer truth to chatter, and serious discussion to inane blather, PBS is the only relevant TV on TV, with rare exceptions.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:18 PM	GSabella : As the chairperson of the history department in my high school, I rely heavily upon the important information that I receive from the News Hour. I have been watching this program since the format was only a half hour on one topic. It is invaluable to have both sides of an issue debated. Most of the news on TV is entertainment. The News Hour is a breath of fresh air and a welcome change from the usual fare, which is often not in-depth and leaves you without most of the background and facts. I'm a member of public television and grateful that there is still a real news program on TV.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:18 PM	Anna Dowd : If there were no PBS, there would be no reason for me to own a t.v.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:16 PM	WL : Of course the Bush administration wants to cut out PBS! Anything to further their goal towards supreme rein within the USA. PBS is the last voice of honest reports with dignity and solid morals for this country. How else would the public know any truth of what goes on in the minds of demons in Washington. United we stand divided we fall. Diminish Democratic and republican party's, use the majority vote only, take back America....WL

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:15 PM	Nan : I could hardly believe that anyone, but especiallly the New York Times, would say that PBS is not necessary or relevant or is redundant. I try to watch the News Hour every day--for news, not a news show. Each evening I scan the on-screen programming to see if PBS will have something interesting to watch. If not, there is not much hope that there will be anyting on the other 200 + stations to watch. ... Back to puzzles or books for the evening.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:13 PM	Peter Pangman : Although it's true there has been a certain "dumbing down" of content, we would be lost without PBS. Watching the BBC World news, then the Jim Lehrer News Hour every night is an established part of our family routine, and has been for years.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:12 PM	JC in FL : The broadcast networks and cable news have thin, repetitive approaches to stories, and sensationalize trivial differences of opinion in the campaign, while ignoring substantive issues. The candidates react and are drawn into discussions that waste everyone's time. PBS takes the time to explore multiple perspectives, with respect, and is questioned about its relevance. The NewsHour, Moyers, Frontline, the dramatic productions -- nothing on broadcast or standard cable matches the quality of PBS. I agree that the first 5 min of commercials are aggravating, but it's a small price to pay. I don't see the market creating this work elsewhere -- PBS is necessary.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:10 PM	albert alt : pbs is the most and best. without pbs, our window to the world would be very small. i cannot imagine a day without it.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:07 PM	Ivan Charvat : I live in Ontario, Canada, I very much appreciate Ameriacn puclic television and I watch the PBS station's HD programme nightly. There is nothing like itin Canada - all other available stations are drenched in advertizing. (I also regularly listen to publicradio, whenever I travel in the US). I hope PBS with survive and thrive - it really is special.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:59 AM	Two long-time PBS viewers : Belatedly, we want to add our voices in support of PBS! Glad you got such a strong positive response to the NY Times article.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:58 AM	Dorothy Toth Beasley : I cannot imagine being an informed American without the vast benefits of PBS and, in particular, the week-nightly NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and the team. I watch it and the 1/2-hour BBC news program that precedes it every night except when not possible. The NewsHour is a primary source of in-depth understanding of today's events and significant issues here and abroad. Without The NewsHour I would have only superficial information. One especially important aspect is that both (or more, if appropriate)sides are given, through interviews of experts. As a Senior Judge of the State of Georgia and mediator and arbitrator, I know that the information from one side does not give an accurate picture. I am enormously grateful for this crucial public service, which costs so little in comparison to the value of the enlightenment and education of the public which it provides. I should add that in addition to BBC and The NewsHour, I am grateful especially for "America and the Courts" and documentaries such as the recent one on the history of Jews in America. And, I must say, "As Time Goes On" and "Keeping Up Appearances", for levity. Thank you all, Dorothy Toth Beasley Atlanta

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:56 AM	benduzzi : I think Americans are getting used to the lowest common demoninator in almost all products. PBS is & has always been higher quality programming than most anywhere else. It's an oasis we need and should vigorously support. Someday, maybe Americans will value education and dignity again.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:56 AM	Tom and Betsy : There is really nothing else on television that compares with PBS. We could never add up the value it has had to us raising our kids, and now that they are grown up and on their own, it enriches and informs our lives even more (because we have time to watch the programs for adults!). If it weren't for PBS and npr, we wouldn't have a television or a radio. The idea that someone would think it irrelevant is chilling. It's certainly the best bargain we get for our taxes and for our contributions. We've been contributing members for 35 years.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:54 AM	richard Gier : I add my voice to all who have spoken in favor of public television in general and the News Hour and Washing ton Week in Review. It makes no sense to challenge the value of programs such as these at this time in US history!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:46 AM	Genevieve : I fully support PBS by watching and contributing. TV would be a desert to me without the programing the station provides: news, commentary and entertainment

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:43 AM	Dennis Fayant : We have over 500 choices on our satelite system, of all those choices the most watched is PBS. Without the News hour we would have no idea of what is going on in the world. At a time when Fox 'News" claimed that the recent fires in California could have been caused by al Quieda, we need news that is actually fair and ballanced and sane. Such news in delivered by PBS and the News Hour and not by Fox.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:34 AM	ruth gier : YES!!!! PBS IS VERY RELEVANT!!!! I WATCH PUBLIC TELEVISION AND FIND ITS MORE BALANCED VOICE TO BE ESSENTIAL!! I DO NOT HAVE CABLE OR A DISC SO DEPEND ON PBS!! I CERTAINLY HOPE SOMEONE DOES NOT GET IT IN HIS/HER HEAD TO MEDDLE WITH PBS.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:32 AM	Lucretia Lee : I know you waved your stack of letters on the Newshour last night, as if this issue were wrapped up, but I have been mulling my comment since you first brought it up, and don't want to be bilked out of my chance! I don't know what I would do without PBS. We live (very happily, and by choice) in the wilderness of West Virginia, and of the broadcast material available to me, PBS is the only thing I am interested in. Oh, there are the football games on commercial channels, and the occasional divigation into CNN and C-Span, but in general, all I ever watch is PBS--Nova, Frontline, Ken Burns' productions, Gwen and David and Bill, and the anchor of my evening, The NewsHour (in whose defense I have several times gone to war with our local broadcaster---they keep wanted to broadcast basketball in that time slot! We have finally arrived at a compromise: they put The NewsHour on a hour early, before the game.) I also listen to All Things Considered, love it! I listen as I fix dinner, and in the car locally, and search for it when I travel. It's great when your hands and eyes are occupied, but your mind isn't. Why? PBS takes the time to fully examine things. I first realized this many years ago. Jim interviewed Helmut Schmidt (yes, MANY years!), taking 20 minutes or half an hour to cover many topics, and I thought how wonderful it was--almost as if I personally had the opportunity to have a discussion with the leader of a major foreign nation, and I noted that nowhere else could I have such an opportunity. And PBS does it in a reasonable tone, without hectoring or propagandizing, looking at the issue from several perspectives. And PBS doesn't beat you up with commercials. I occasionally watch a particular program on Discovery or the History channel or House and Garden, and the ads are a regular bombardment, enough to drive away any viewer with a fragile nervous system. And to more directly address the NY Times' article--they say nothing against the quality of The NewsHour, just that Jim has been there a long time. Hey, what's wrong with that? If you've got something good going, why not stick with it? I am extremely fond of Jim. Since Robin isn't there any more to say "Good Night" to him, I always do it for him! And what's wrong with Jane Austen? They would have complained a few years back that it was all "Upstairs, Downstairs"--that lasted a lot longer than Jane Austen is apt to. I am sorry to hear that good programs are going elsewhere. We should do something about that! Thank you so much for being there, and, yes, I do support my local PBS station.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:30 AM	Howard Purgason : Yes! PBS is vital! Most all of the other news channels (slight exception would be CNN) are dreadful. We could not do without the Newshour and we love the other broadcasting: Mystery, Masterpiece Theatre, and so on. What is that man crazy?!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:27 AM	Karen del Sol : Without public television with programs like the newshour and front line, we would go back to the dark ages. Commercial television news and information have been bought by special interest and real news are obscured and manipulated.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 11:22 AM	Lawrence D. McGovern : I disagree that there is no liberal excess on PBS. Friday evenings, at least on PBS in New York City, is liberals night out with Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio financed in part by public finds, at no cost to the DNC. "The NewsHour," on the other hand, gives the appearance of balanced reporting. But viewers of the network claiming to have "kept America's trust" do not need a television version of "The New York Times" every evening. For example, New York Times reporters constitute a major source of reporting, as if there is a lack of other sources. More specifically, I was surprised that the lead story on the NewsHour on Thursday, February 21 was the front page story on Sen. John McCain in the Times the same day. Then on Friday, February 22, Mr. Lehrer concluded that the NewsHour would continue to follow the Times story closely, immediately after Messrs. Brooks and Shields questioned the Times reporting and agreed that the basis of the article appeared to be a dead issue. Here again, it should be noted that Mr. Brooks writes for the Times and that he certainly does not provide conservative philosophical balance to Mr. Shield's unwavering support of liberal Democratic positions. I believe more balanced political coverage in PBS programing is long overdue.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:52 AM	Ted Tonkinson : I watch PBS almost every evening and never read the NYT. As far as I am concerned, we can get rid of the New York Times and keep PBS.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:51 AM	Carol Kieval : I can't really express the many hours of enjoyment I have received from watching Masterpiece Theater, Mystery and other productions over the years going as far back as the original The Forsythe Saga. Other wonderful productions have been :I, Claudius, The Jewel in the Crown, The Mayor of CasterbridgeTo Play the King, White Teeth, Inspector Morse, and Prime Suspect and many more. My life has been enriched by these programs. I hope they will continue even though at the moment they are without funding. I also find the current events programs extremely informative. These programs include The News Hour, Frontline and Bill Moyers. Yes, PBS is indeed a necessary!!!! Very necessary!!!!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:39 AM	joanschmedemann : What an outrageous question. Of course PBS should be continued in order to inform a country trying to represent the views of the populace. The Newshour reports are balanced, unprejudiced, and informative. What bearing does the age of Jim Lehrer have on anything? He is an interviewer of unexcelled quality. All Newshour correspondents are superb in interviewing a most appropriate and balanced guest selection. Entire range of PBS programming deserves support from public financing in addition to individual stations' fund raising.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:38 AM	Emily Morrison : First I am an elder, if that matters. More and more I find the commercial TV shows written on the moron level. There are no valuable programs except on PBS. Happily I live in the NH/ME border and get 2 PBS stations which is wonderful. In our area a lot of re-runs of old English comedy shows which I don't think have aged well, which might mean the English have a problem with their base comedy shows as we do. Please keep this valuable asset coming. The idea of having a place on our tax forms might help the funding. Emily Morrison

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:37 AM	Thomas W. McDermott : The Newshour is the most informative, unbiased, evenhanded, news program on television these days. I cannot imagine how this could, or would be replaced on commercial or cable TV. I hope Jim Lehrer lives forever. Most of the television I watch is on PBS. I consider PBS to be a National Treasure in the mostly vast wasteland of commercial and cable TV. I enjoy the science of NOVA; the coverage of issues by Frontline and Bill Moyers; the live musical performances on Great Perfomances, Austin City Limits, and Sound Stage; and the entertainment of Masterpiece. And where else is history covered by the likes of Ken Burns!? I'll tell you where else-no where else. These are just some of my favorites. Who's going to replace Sesame Street et. al. for the education and entertainment of children. PBS is a National Treasure-if you think about it.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:32 AM	Valerie Garcia : With the exception of the Lehrer NewsHour, news on television has devolved into infotainment: opinion packaged to look like news. It's getting more and more difficult to ferret out real news. Cable television is BIG BUSINESS, ratings driven. The Lehrer NewsHour, NOW, Frontline, NOVA, Washington Week, Bill Moyers - all are favorite shows. Cable television: a zillion choices, mostly junk!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:31 AM	helene rand alexander : pbs/npr is my choice for daily information,without this i would be lost and confused. i believe all other news coverage is not telling the complete story.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:28 AM	ruth : I think it's time that all of t.v. should be converted to pbs programming. There is nothing like it anywhere. I watch it all the time and enjoy it immensely. PBS is not only a place of learning but one of a variety of entertainment covering the world. Where else is this available? I am shocked that advertisers are willing to pay for the bottom-of-the-barrel programming that has taken over the networks. The demeanor the networks represent sets a very low standard for those watching and participating. Of course, this low type of programming just might encourage more folks to go to reading. Now wouldn't that be something! PBS is the last and only place left for one to enjoy funny, interesting, educational, and challenging media. If we lose PBS, we lose ourselves.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:20 AM	Eileen Cole : I've moved a lot in my life, and am familiar with news programs in many different cities. The only place I've found I can find consistent, reliable coverage is on the PBS channel. I don't know what I'd do without The News Hour --it's the one program I can consistently count on!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:17 AM	Mary Liebrock : I am the mother of two college age children. Our family has been watching PBS since the kids were very little. Now, it's still our favorite. We watch Nova, Frontline and The News Hour. My kids have a great grasp of current events, and I believe it's from growing up with The News Hour. We need public television. There's no other source like it!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:09 AM	margaret peters : The News Hour, which we watch faithfully, is a bright shining light in the world of news coverage. It strives to present both sides of any issue in sufficient depth that the viewer truly gets a clear picture and stimulates one to consider topics that might be missed in the network news. We always turn to it the get a balanced view of what is going on in the world. Of particular interest is the outstanding coverage of legal issues and court opinions, made remarkably clear and understandable. As a professional historian and author, I can only trust that the News Hour will be used as an unusually valuable "primary source" as students of the future struggle to understand the history of the early 21st century.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:08 AM	Tom Kilroy : My family and I feel PBS is invaluable, and especially The News Hour. It's the one place we look for news that is unbiased and thorough. It's a substitute for reading about three or four newspapers. I wish every American would watch --we would have a more informed, less biased public. The fact that The News Hour and PBS is not dependent upon commercial support provides the viewer with much more objective content. I fear that much of the other news available -- even in newspapers today -- can be influenced by corporate ownership. For the past thirty years our family has relied on The News Hour, and we hope that it continues for at least another 30 years.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 10:05 AM	Tom Blair : Is PBS still necessary? In this era of 24/7 multiple, high-budget news networks, commercial television has turned the evening news into 30-second sound bites sandwiched in between lengthy segments filled with numerous ads. Even the “in-depth” reporting is only a couple of minutes long, if that. Hardly enough time to ferret out the facts pertaining to complex issues facing an increasing complex and interdependent world. The News Hour, on the other hand, devotes the time needed for a truly in-depth presentation of the issues and their commentaries are thoughtful and well balanced. By the way, I’m a conservative, registered Republican who doesn’t even own a pair of Birkenstocks. Looking for quality entertainment? We have Mystery or The Biggest Losers; Masterpiece Theater or Wife Swap. Need I say more? Is PBS still necessary? More than ever! Tom Blair

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:56 AM	Linda Lorenz : PBS IS relevant. i do not watch much commercial TV - reality TV? no way. i watch Lehrer Report every evening. Friday nites with Washington Week, NOW, and Bill Moyers - WOW ! keep up the good work everyone !!!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:49 AM	June Weis : There is no other comprehensive, balanced news service available. I depend on it. Keep PBS and the NewsHour on the air.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:44 AM	John Malas : I believe that public TV and public radio (both) are necessary. History will tell us time and time again that public TV provides a unique service to the citizens of this country. I find public TV and the News Hour in particular to be one of the few things in this country that gives me hope. Jim Lehrer has dedicated his life to quality, objeectivity, and balanced news coverage. Please do not stop!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:42 AM	Nancy Mellon : The following letter was sent to the NYTImes. As a 73 year old woman who is not in assisted living, but swims 20 laps a day, I was highly insulted and angry over your comments relative to "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer." Here is one place where there is indepth coverage of the events of the day. Those interviewed actually have time to explain their views in at least ten minute segments. For example, did you see the recent interview of Attorney GEneral Mukasey by Jim Lehrer. It was the most thorough interview regarding water boarding and whether it was torture. Jim Lehrer came at the issue from every angle. I have a feeling that the reporter of this piece has never watched this program or seen the indepth insights from Mark Shileds and David Brooks every Friday night.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:36 AM	Peyton : Did you watch Bill Moyers' Journal last night, Mr. McGrath? I rest my case for PBS (and I'll continue to watch The News Hour every night).

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:21 AM	Janice Robin : To me, PBS is an absolute necessity. My TV is never turned to any other channel. I love Bill Moyers' Journal, David Broncaccio's NOW (Although it is too, too short and should be at least an hour long.), Frontline, Masterpeice Classics, and other very informative broadcasts on PBS. The only news broadcast I watch on TV is the Lehrer News Hour. It has the kind of news discussion which is sadly missing from other so-called news programming. (I do though notice that the News Hour is leaning more and more toward the right, leaving out the point of view usually of people whose politics are in the progressive mode, such as myself.) How can the New York Times ask if PBS is necessary? They should rather ask it of themselves seeing that they have given to its reading public a good deal of misinformation during the horrendous bush years.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:20 AM	1878Barn : My husband and I are creative professionals and work at home in a semi-rural community. Antiques Roadshow, This Old House, American Experience, Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, and Great Performances provide a nice break from our work. We read newspapers in the morning and watch the news hour to see a balanced, low key approach to the news. We watch the network news but are aware of how biased it is. Unfortunatly,while the Times is a great newspaper, writers who live in the New York City area are really out of touch with the rest of the country. PBS is extremely important to "the rest of us". Thanks!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:17 AM	marcie silverstein : Aw, c'mon. You have called attention to Charles McGrath's outrageously deprecating article in order to rally the PBS aupport troops. You've succeeded! Of course PBS is relevent, and what a relief it is to turn to it after flipping through the mindless sitcoms, the semi-hysterial talking heads with their "expert" panels, the "reality" shows and the seemingly authoritative news readers. NPR is also much to be praised for what it does, but to compare PBS's programming to it is not apt. I hope all your fans will increase their financial and moral support. We may be small, but we're mighty.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:16 AM	Peggy Aulisio : I love the News Hour and many other PBS programs like the current Jane Austen series, Washington Week in Review, Charlie Rose, Independent Lens and Frontline. Plus the classic movies on Saturday night. Adding Judy Woodruff to the News Hour added a lot to it. I really find Wolf Blitzer irritating and there are too many white males hosting the major programs on MSNBC for it to not seem chauvinistic. I do feel that there is way too much repetition of food and music programs that I personally am not interested in even though I love gourmet cooking and good music. I can find that kind of programming elsewhere. This Old House has become almost tedious at times. Perhaps you should have a real fun yet charismatic restoration historian as the commentator, not the awe shucks kind of narration. And I am not crazy about seeing the interiors of historic houses turned into modern kitchens, etc. I would love to see more imaginative new programming on real historic preservation or on subjects that are more American and less British. I loved the series on architects who worked on American parks and lodges. The major difference with PBS and NPR to me is that there is a freshness on NPR, more humor and more American stories. Why not do American playhouse, more programs that feature interviews with American artists and authors, or on the road stories like Charles Kuralt used to do. I like Antiques Roadshow but there is way too much of it. That conductor, Andre whatever, is ludicrous. Suddenly we are flooded with travel stories that are not really that edifying or well filmed. I will never watch American Ballroom, which seems like an obvious copy of American Idol or that kind of stupid programming. With all that is going on in the Mideast, you should have a Muslim/Christian/Jewish dialogue series. All of this costs money but paying for all those silly British repeats must also cost money. If you need to open yourselves up to a little more advertising to pay for this, and cut some salaries, then that should be the focus.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:11 AM	barnabus : Our radios are continuously tuned to one of two public radio stations. We watch a local commercial station for local news; otherwise our TV watching is 100% public television. The news programming is literate, comprehensive and fair. Entertainment programming assumes some degree of intelligence on our part. It is stimulating and entertaining -- completely lacking in the coarseness and crudity found in much of commercial television. And don't even get me started on obnoxious commercials! The underwriter pieces, while certainly necessary, are much less intrusive -- and offensive. Public broadcasting is relevant and absolutely necessary to both our culture and our democracy.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:09 AM	Pat K : We do need the NY TIMES and I read it daily on-line. I would, however, give up the TIMES for PBS and C-SPAN. The greater the level and quality of information that we are able to access the more involved and intelligent our citizens. I have a husband that loves using the remote so we are aware of the choices on our cable. There is absolutely nothing that would fill in the void created if we did not have PBS and CSPAN. Oh, and PBS also provides us with some excellent programs on the state and regional level. Pat K

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:03 AM	mediaman : Since most media decisions (feel free to substitute political or marketing) are made by using surveys like A.C. Nielsen, that delineate viewer preferences (feel free to substitute voter or buyer) we end up servicing the middle of the bell curve. All programming becomes mediocre -- America gets “dumbed-down”. PBS is important because it does not pander to the mass middle; rather it often services the thinking fringes. PBS is a service that brings intelligence to the public in a manner that does not underestimate the viewers’ intelligence. Our society cannot tolerate fewer “thinking” media outlets. Long live PBS!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:02 AM	COLETTE : YES, PBS and all its wonderful programs, including the NEWS HOURS are not only necessary, they are VITAL to viewers like me ...and have been for many, many years - NO other channel offers as many intelligent, pertinent, non-biased and also enter-taining programs - PLEASE, stay with US !! Colette

Posted: 02/23/08 at 09:02 AM	michael m. peters : I watch PBS regularly , especially the Nightly News with Jim Lehrer.This an excellent summary of the news. I do not care for Bill Moyers at all. A number of months ago he had a guest on , Bruce Bawer, who had written a book entitled " While Europe slept , the rise of Islamic fundamentalism ". When Mr. Bawer began to tell the truth on how the fanatics are advancing their horrors into Holland, Norway , France, The U.K. etc. you could see Moyers becoming increasingly nervous and apprehensive. It was a perfect example of a Liberal's inability to hear ideas and opinions different than his own without wilting.Mr. Moyers is a shill for Lib ideology. But I look forward to Masterpiece Theatre and do hope it can get back to great programming along the lines of Helen Mirren, Upstairs / Downstairs and so many other classics my wife and I have enjoyed for years.We are contributors. The programming is so superior to it's competition that there really is no comparison. SAYING THAT PLEASE REALIZE WE ONLY HAVE BASIC T.V. AND WE WOULD RATHER READ THAN WATCH T.V. As far as the NYT's is concerned I wouldn't be too concerned as the Gray Lady is on the path to extinction. It has little credibility left after it decided to become the mouthpiece for the Democrats and duplicate their editorials on the front page. Too bad but they have gone from Punch to Flinch and it shows.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:53 AM	Tom S. : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the best news source on TV. It has substance, knowledgeable presenters and is done in a civil and in-depth manner. It is a relief not to be deluged with stories about Brittany, Lindsay and paparozzi!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:49 AM	audrey seidel : Public radio and public television are the only place to get accurate and in depth coverage of the news. I can't believe the NY Times would not support this excellent source of news.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:47 AM	Mike : The Times questions if PBS is still necessary? Maybe they should spend more time examining thier own editorial staff. I suppose they would like to ask if they could change thier presidential endorsement too.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:47 AM	Burton Pike : I appreciate your quality programs, but the relentless increase of pablum programming on PBS is insufferable: feel-good psychology, cosmetic surgery, how to get rich, Lawrence Welk, Andre Rieu, Antiques Roadshow etc. How about taking a leaf from NPR?

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:30 AM	Claudia : The best program on television is the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. It is the only fair, objective news broadcast. Such a program deserves and has earned public funding. If it were not for PBS this household would not have a television set at all.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:29 AM	Chuck Johnson : To whom it may concern: I watch the M-L News hour every week night, Mc Group on Saturday Night and Washington Week among the many documentaries and theatrical productions. If everyone had been forced to see the documentary on the supposed reasons to go into Iraq -- we would not have. It would be crazy to even consider dropping such a valuable Media Asset. We can never have too much objective views and intelligent programming! Chuck

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:18 AM	Carl : I view PBS to get away from news programs. I think our society is "too" news oriented and PBS is a refreshing change from that. I also view PBS because there is way TOO much reality on television. Some of my favorite programming includes: American Experience Broadway, The American Musical Pioneers of Television - which is one of the best PBS programs in years. This is a MUST watch, and I hope they produce many, many, more. Is PBS still necessary? Probably not the way it is currently funded and structured Is it still wanted? Now that is the question and the answer is; without question. PBS needs to find a way to exist without our money. Other tv organizations do it, so if PBS wanted to, they could. If they would adopt the philosophy that some day government money will be non-existent, then they would be well on their way to adding new life to what is wanted by viewers. PBS needs to find a new way to fund itself and refresh its on-air presence. Mix some of the current with new, exciting, and fresh programming that is not a knock-off of other network programming.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 08:15 AM	Rob Martin : With all the choices available today on line, in print, & via cable, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the one staple in my information/entertainment diet. Yes, I too resent the encroachment of commercial messages into public television. But the reality explored on PBS in general and the News Hour in particular are more informative and thought provoking than any of the reality programming presented elsewhere.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:53 AM	Joyce Davis : I go to PBS to get the news because it is unbiased and you get both side of the story. I watch Business News with Paul Kangas, Bill Moyers Journal, Nova, Now and all the other wonderful programs they have. I cannot imagine not being able to watch PBS. I cannot believe the New York Times would allow such a thought to clutter their minds much less put it in print! I have watched PBS since the day it started and enjoyed every minute of it! MAY LONG LIVE PBS!!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:49 AM	Sally M. : When I am tired after a hard work-day, I sometimes watch a sitcom or rerun of Law & Order. The rest of the time PBS television stations are my choice-- for high quality, balanced news, entertainment, and information on a wide range of topics (Frontline,Amer.Experience, etc). If PBS "went away" my source of news would have to be newspapers, print and on-line. After years of hearing from the News Hour's outstanding journalists, I would find network and cable news sadly lacking, in depth and in seriousness of purpose. 'Ditto' for NPR as the only high quality source for radio news and features and, depending on the local station, a wide variety of music genres for listening pleasure. I wish these public radio and television stations were more strongly supported by public funding.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:46 AM	Lois : PBS is absolutely necessary. The only sane way to get the news and information of the day. The only station that gave complete equal time to all candidates. If not for PBS, I would not have known what more than 3 candidates stood for. If not for The News Hour, the only choices would be which of the screaming matches to watch. The News Hour and the BBC are the only news sources I count on for real information. PBS is definitely necessary.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 07:35 AM	Marcus : The best programs on television are: The News Hour, Frontline, Nova!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:38 AM	Taylor : After watching an episode of PBS "Rough Science" were Dr. Jonathan Hare was given the challenge to communicate his voice over a light beam using only what he could find in an abandon mine, I was inspired to contact him through the PBS website. I flew to the UK and we discussed the possibilities of using these challenges in a "hands on" science curriculum for US high school students. After two years of work, we came up with "Island Electronics" It just won a "science in action" award http://www.nsawards.com/newsmanager/templates/?a=189&z=24 Who would have thought this would happen after watching a TV show. PBS works for me. thanks

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:04 AM	Ed Gonzalez : In this day and age when all cable news channels cater to ratings and either side of the extreme The News Hour is THE ONLY news source that I trust. They provide in depth coverage and analysis and look for the unbiased truth in the news. To say PBS is not relevant today would be surrendering yet another liberty ( of the few we have left ) the liberty of free thinking thought, the liberty to seek truth.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 06:01 AM	Travis Duprey : PBS is more relevant and important now than ever; news programing is especially such. The very fact that PBS was willing and able to take the article, where for-profit news corporations would have snootily disregarded it, and engaged in a serious, genuine, and PUBLIC discussion of the possibility. While PBS is slowly bending to financial pressures of our corporate controlled economy, it is still by far, the most accurate, objective, legitimate news that is widely available. As we plunge more deeply into corporation-centric world, objective news becomes increasingly rare and therefore valuable. Never forget that telling the truth and telling what will make you money are fundamentally conflicting doctrines. I just hope that PBS will remain and continue to serve us as well as it has in the past and present. Travis Duprey

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:57 AM	STEVE WILLIAMS : PBS THANK YOU FOR BRINGING A BALANCED AND INDEPTH NEWS FORMAT. CBS, NBC, AND ABC PRESENT A SNAPSHOT OF THE NEWS THAT THEY BELIEVE THE VIEWERS WANT TO SEE. FOX IS BASICLY SPIN DOCTORS FOR THE CONSERVITIVES. THEN YOU HAVE COMIDY CENTRAL WITH RUSH AND SHAWN. PBS PROVIDES THE BASICS THEN EXPANDS ON IT WITH GUEST'S WITH OPOSING VIEWS. THE VIEWER IS GIVEN THE PRO AND CON ALLOWING US TO FORMULATE AN OPIONION AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND THE FACTS. THANKS STEVE

Posted: 02/23/08 at 05:36 AM	Doug Johnson : I never used to read much of any type of book. But after many years of listening to the in-depth coverage of history and news, I am driven by todays issues and by in-depth coverage of history and news from PBS to read books on political U.S. history. Right now I'm reading books on recent U.S. Presidents along with the current crop of books all dealing with todays issues. Fortunately Portland has good thrift stores or I would not be able to afford the books. When I visit my Dad in the nursing home, I get a taste of what is being promoted as news on cable networks. I doubt very much I would not be driven to read from the breaking news junk and yelling that I hear on the cable news networks. Thank you PBS!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:48 AM	Ross Brown : The moment I heard about this I felt an urgent need to voice my disapproval of any measure to remove a service such as the PBS. I regularly watch the PBS news hour and find it does a great service to the American people by giving the rest of the world a glimpse that the U.S (TV & Cinema)is not all about sitcoms & hyped up hollywood movies ...... also your reporting in general is unbiased and the part dedicated to the casualties (soldiers names photos etc)from the Irag/Afghan conflict I find very moving. Keep up the good work PBS. Best Regards, Ross Brown Sydney Australia

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:44 AM	Lawrence Brown : The argument about the relevancy of PBS by Charles McGrath is simplistic, though the questions raised in the article are worth asking. Mr. McGrath points to Jim Lehrer's age and lengthy career at the News Hour, but fails to mention the vitality and depth that recent additions, such as Gwen Ifell, Ray Suarez and Jeffrey Brown have given the show. Nor did the article mention Frontline, still the best and perhaps the best ever, documentary and investigative news show. Nova is still as good and as fresh as ever, as are the insights of Bill Moyers and his guests; and the American Experience is quite good at giving us the history of its subject while entertaining with the story-telling that makes history so interesting. Mr. McGrath also mentions the PBS Ballroom Dancing show as a copy to attract audiences. But if he had done his research instead of relying on being glib, he would have known that PBS had been broadcasting the dancing competition years before the commercial network began its show, interrupted as it is every eight minutes by obnoxious commercials. As for Mr. McGrath’s argument in favor of cable tv, some of us who watch tv do not have cable, and don’t want it. Having tried it over a period of time when traveling, I can attest that cable tv has as much or more drivel than any of the free broadcast commercial networks. I will not quarrel with the assertion made that cable offers programming that matches the quality of PBS. But cable must be bought as a package that requires a monthly payment, and I argue that the quality given in the package, containing a large part of what I don’t want, is not worth the cost; and as a commitment to that payment, puts the buyer at a distinct disadvantage. There is a darker implication here that is entirely ignored by Mr. McGrath. Cable can boast of offering 500 channels, but an overwhelming majority are owned by five or six corporations. Their commitment is to profit, not quality or enlightenment. Radio and tv have always been for-profit businesses, but the growing monopoly of news and entertainment broadcasting is troubling, and not in the public interest. Monopoly also is growing in ownership of local stations, a stark example being the Boston market. At least nine television stations are broadcast locally over the VH and UH frequencies, and only two of these stations remain locally owned: WGBH and WGBX, the Boston PBS stations.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:32 AM	Twizzler : — coolcatdaddy, Greensboro, NC on the NYX site, You are being bias. Not bad, but I can hear it in your words. What opportunity do You have to get an independent film on the networks or cables. Oh & let's look at cable, no different then the Networks. Majority of cable shows carry as much Ad time as all programs. No difference except in the fact that you pay for tv programs, albeit a much wider variety. Don't be a Hater! If Lawrence Welk Rocks! did not have the audience he would not be on the Air! You do not need TV these days to capture an audience, just an internet connection! coolcatdaddy ain't so cool! get that cat de-wormed!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:26 AM	Alan V Somers, BA, MPH, MBA, JD : If "eternal vigilance is the price of freedom," then informed voters are the essential foundation of a democracy. When I brokered stock for Shearson Lehman Hutton, I encouraged clients to own a diverse portfolio of investments, because none, standing alone, despite each enterprise's best efforts, could guarantee its owners complete financial security. So too, because no one source of information to me as a voter offers completeness and objectivity, despite its investigators', reporters', and analysts' best intentions and efforts, I seek information about the world in which I live and vote from a diverse portfolio of sources, deliberately chosen for their reputations for professional excellence. Whenever I teach a college class, our very first session discusses "How do we know 'what we know'?" I encourage me students to do what I have said above for the reasons given above. While I encourage them to find their own portfolio of news sources, I hold out to them my own, as an example. Among "The Economist," "The New Yorker," "Business Week," "Newsweek," "INC," and "The Philadelphia Inquirer," I include CBS's "60 Minutes," NBC's "Meet the Press" and "Chris Matthews Show," NPR's "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered," and PBS's "NOW," "Bill Moyers' Journal," "Washington Week," and its "The News Hour." I tell my students how specially I value the comparatively deep 10-15 minutes that "The News Hour" gives each day's major news stories, because such attention allows me so much better to understand them than the 1-3 minutes' worth of "sound bites" carried by the other broadcast networks. NPR gives me similar depth in reporting for the same extra devotion of time to stories. Further, both NPR and PBS have offered their respective listeners and viewers a parade of excellent journalism professionals for decades. For confirmation, witness the poaching that other networks have committed, year after year, hiring away great reporter/analyst after great reporter/analyst. At a time when conglomerates such as Disney and General Electric cut back on the quantity and quality of their news gathering and analytic staffs, just to boost their shareholders' returns on investments, NPR and PBS, operating not for profit, but for the Public Good, are our last bulwarks for great broadcast journalism. In the midst of a Right Wing assault on America's Constitution and fundamental democratic values now some 40 years old, news sources such as NPR and PBS are more relevant to preserving American freedom than ever!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:25 AM	Paul P. Duke : But the last few years PBS has become a wasteland of the kind of somnelescent mediocrity that big business Hopes entire airways are covered with. Throughout its history and as the central part of its public interest role, PBS is provided the service to America of bringing to light Problems in public policy And commercial practice that do harm to America and Americans. And the programming has moved public opinion To adopt an ethos to changes those practices . Most notable have been The connections of large U.S. industries and multinationals to and their effect on social conflict and war and that man has put the environment at jeopardy By polluting the air with hydrocarbons . You’re probably too intellectually dull to appreciate that you’re flagship “news” program ‘Washington week’ has allowed itself to become dependent for funding On a coal company and oil company And war manufacture, the very industry sectors that have contributed the most to going to war And to causing global warming. . You must be very proud of yourself . To show the insanity to which you have descended this is the very caricature triad of industries the comedy writers for the movie The naked gun selected to be the most Outrageous and ridiculous axis Of evil. And in your pathetic obsequiousness you embraced that sponsorship of these multinationals, who would not be giving money without an expectation of it paying off for their corporations, without the slightest hint of self consciousness Or objection that the PBS mission may be Compromised. Quick TEST: who created the program called NOW? Who is the only present contributor who was a part of the Original creation of PBS? . Why has he been stripped of his show that he himself Created? You disGusT me and the members of our foundation with what you’ve done to your public trust . Lehrer reads direct copy from the White House department of communications . The MacNeil Lehrer NewsHour is nothing more than an administration organ without Context or balance That ted Koppel with his many years of experience indicated was essential to good reporting . . Does anybody seriously believe that if Jim Lehrer were reading for PRAVDA in the Soviet union that his delivery would be 1 ounce different ?

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:09 AM	SwampFox1 : We need PBS more now than ever before. Anyone who believes differently need only check the major news stories about Bush and the Iraq War. There was not one story from ANY news agency willing to confront president Bush and his "take my word for it" scheme. The piece deserves an award for straight talking in your face reporting by real journalists, and not policitical pundits. Congradulations, PBS! May the spirits of truth always be at your side...

Posted: 02/23/08 at 03:07 AM	siberianblues : W/out PBS, there would be no truth in our Media! Let's face it, I live in Cincinnati & my local 5, 9, 12, & 19 are, I am very sad to say, dis-heartening in an intellectual sense. Our Nations "Prime Time" News is so riddle w/ half truths & out right fallacies, whether deliberate or not, it is more like 13 minutes of comedy. It is my lowly opinion the "National Press", so to speak, are merely 'Marionette's'. I mean come on, Katie Couric? Really? Great if your into "Fashion & Gossip". PBS Forever, NYX Never!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:41 AM	tom collins : My wife and I have been watching PBS and listening to NPR since their earliest days. I have long been disappointed, however, by some of the sponsorship of THE News Hour, especially by ADM and some others. Because ADM is a proven criminal enterprise, we ceased our contributions to PBS several years ago. By being associated with such sponsors, how can PBS distinguish itself from corporate news when it comes to the subject of ethics? I really enjoy much of the programing on PBS, but I feel that by contributing I am somehow being hypocritical by associating through PBS with criminal and unethical entities. Please clean up your act and choose sponsors with higher standards.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:25 AM	Lilianne Holden Ramirez : As television and other communicaton media are being gobbled up and consolidated by a few giant for-profit corporations, PBS becomes a crucial source for unbiased in-depth news coverage. I have lived a long time; I'm 69 years old, and have always been a serious student of history and world affairs. Recently, I became so disenchanted with the shallow, sensationalized dribble that passes for TV network news and political commentary, that I stopped watching it completely. I now rely solely on PBS, the BBC, radio, and sometimes newspapers or periodicals for my information. We desperately need to continue the sober refined un-glamourized news coverage The Newshour provides; we need in depth thinkers like Bill Moyers; we need Frontline; Washington Week; and Nova. I bemoan PBS's increasing reliance on corporate funding, but what other options do they have? As long as sponsors don't try limit or influence content, I can live with it. PBS will never appeal to everyone. But it will always appeal to the curious, to dreamers, and to seekers of truth. These are the kind of people who watch PBS. These are the kind of people who make a difference in the world.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:09 AM	m.odonnell : I tried to comment to the NY Times in their forum, "Is PBS..." although I don't think I got in under the wire of 800-plus comments. Obviously there are many more respondents to the NewsHour already, so I will be happy if someone merely reads this, even if it doesn't get posted. PBS is the last island of sanity in the US television universe for those who can read above the 5th grade level or can remember broadcast news in its heyday. Veritable glaciers of infotainment rubbish are melting into tsunamis of mediocrity, flooding the shores where news on television once lived. There will never be another Edward R. Murrow or another "Sixty Minutes" but there will be plenty of hucksters turning the once-free, public airwaves into living proof the nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public of Mr. Mencken. The NewsHour, Washington Week and all of the documentary and long-form programs never existed in the previous commercial-only network television world and they never will. The public service, issues oriented broadcasts of yore are now Sunday morning shouting matches modeled after the moribund "Press the Meat", as I call it and are best used to demonstrate examples of bad manners to your children. No cable outlet or a network would have ever given Charlie Rose, Judy Woodruff or Gwen Ifill the chance to bring us interviews where people not normally seen on television speak at length; far above the threshold of "happy talk" drivel which every morning network show is now awash in. Frank Zappa once said "'Rock journalism' is people who can't talk being interviewed by people who can't write for people who can't read." That sounds precisely like Mr. Murdoch's neighborhood today if you climb down from the pristine peaks of PBS. Thanks always.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 02:02 AM	sally miller : Our family has been watching PBS for thirty years. The News Hour has, without fail, provided an inteligent, balanced, big-picture, long-term view of the events of the day. It is a spot of hope and sanity in an increasingly chaotic and dangerous world. Other programs such as the Nightly Business Report, Frontline, and Nova enlighten faithful viewers with information and ideas across a broad spectrum of subjects. Inspirational programing such as Masterpiece Theatre and American Masters highlights our creativity and humanity. Though we watch network and cable programs, which are in the moment and graphically and technologically striking. They are not satisfying in the same way as PBS has always been and c9ontinues to be in spite of funding cuts.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:53 AM	Don McCurdy : All the posted coments reflect my feelngs on the importance of PBS - Newshour, Washington Week in Review, Nova, Great Performances, The British Comedies, etc. - to say nothing about the children's programs, and other educational programs are so very important to everyone. One thing not mentioned was the importance of PBS in tying together our great nation, extending over five time zones (counting Hawaii and Alaska) and 3000 plus miles of land. We need to keep Public Broadcasting to knit together all the elements of our country. I hope the coming elections will even strengthen PBS with more support, financially and philosophically.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:48 AM	kitkatgirl : I wonder seriously about Mr. McGrath's perception of the value of public television. Who is his intended audience? Who put him up to writing such an article? I can only hazard a guess. I will state emphatically here, that when searching for interesting, intellectually stimulating, balanced news, I always look toward PBS. Be it "The News Hour", BBC news, "Frontline","Frontline World", "Independent Lens", Expose or "Foreign Exchange" with Fareed Zakaria, I am very grateful for the well-rounded approach to topics of national and international importance, an approach seldom, if ever, found on either mainstream network programs or on the likes of CNN and Fox. "Bill Moyers' Journal", "Now", "The News Hour" and "Frontline" alone, justify maintaining, and yes, even upgrading, financial support for public television. My children watched "Sesame Street" and "Reading Rainbow" --shows not improved upon by any of the copycats on cable. I enjoy the many nature programs on PBS and some of the mystery series. In my opinion, no one outdoes PBS! Even "Animal Planet", which I like immensely, suffers from too many, lengthy commercial interruptions. The Discovery Channel and The History Channel do offer interesting fare. But, they are also very repetitious and not all of their offerings are stellar. It's rather a dirty trick, as others have noted, to slash funding for PBS practically to the bone, then denigrate it for being substandard. There is a strong anti-intellectual current in the USA. How ironic in the land of the free and the home of "The Education President!"

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:41 AM	Mr. and Mrs. M. Rees : We are very fortunate to be able to watch the News Hour on our ABC1 (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) station, even though we get it a day later. As watchers of the News Hour here in Australia we value that service greatly. Whether watching from our Alaska home or from here we have long felt it to be the only US news we trust. Wish we could also watch Washington Week in Review and other current affairs programs here in Australia.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:28 AM	Ken : Eat your heart out commercial stations! Jims got the best news in the world.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:27 AM	B. Rose : It will be a sad day in American when we can no longer watch Jim Lehrer's News Hour. It is the only news show that my husband and I watch, and we watch it every weeknight. There have been times in the past few years when I've seen bits of network news at other people's homes and I am always amazed at how trivial and superficial the reporting is. I remember when the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour was changed from a half hour to an hour and Mr. McNeil quipped "I wonder if now we will be twice as boring?" I am so thankful for the News Hour and its "boring" news, which is, in fact, news with some depth instead of snippets chosen for shock or entertainment value rather than importance and content. The News Hour covers stories that don't seem to be important to the networks - the continuing problems on the African continent, for example. I agree with the people who have commented that funding for PBS should indeed be increased, not decreased. Programs like Nova (not the newer 20 minute segmentized Novas - the full hour productions that have some depth) and Frontline, as well as the many musical specials and concerts should be continued. Those of us who remember Playhouse 90 would like to see productions of plays appear again on television. It is astounding to see the garbage that passes for entertainment on network television today. I am also a fan of Public Radio, and I am very glad to hear All Things Considered when I'm driving. I like that news program for the same reason that I like Jim Lehrer so much - calm, even, fair informative reporting. I lately learned that my 35 year old son also listens to Public Radio on his way home from work and it is great to be able to discuss what we've heard. (I have friends who discuss what someone last ate on Fear Factor with their grown children - what a sad situation.) Years ago when television began many people recognized its potential for educating and informing - PBS seems to be the only station that does that with any consistency. I live in an area where we must pay to get PBS - it isn't available here over the airwaves and with satellite we must pay extra for the PBS channel. It is money well spent.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:26 AM	Bonnie Borton : I listen to PBS radio and watch PBS TV because the programming is sensible and informative. No commercials and a variety of comedy,drama and mystery shows to entertain. Please do not think of discontinuing these stations!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:22 AM	Ann Colonna : I am a 33 year old woman living in Portland, Oregon. I can tell you PBS is really the only channel I trust and I watch PBS daily. My favorite programs are Bill Moyers Journal, Frontline, the News Hour, Foreign Exchange, NOW and Oregon Field Guide. I don't know what I would do without PBS, NPR and OPB. Thank you!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:17 AM	bigbobby : The fact that the Times has even chosen to attack PBS only illustrates their contempt for ethical, unbiased journalism.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 01:02 AM	Susan Brayton : Well, if there was no PBS I would get rid of my television set, which may be a good thing. Tonight I hurried to watch Washington Week after dinner. Just about every evening I watch the Lehrer News Hour. My 103 1/2+ (yes one-hundred and three plus eight months) year old mother asks "Is Jim on yet?" And prior to Jim, watch the BBC news which gives non-American coverage of world affairs. What a relief not to be blasted (as does CNN) with their exaggerated news stories and overblown pundits, and then get them again & again (with commercials). Bert and Ernie in VA say it all (look at their comments).

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:52 AM	Edward Harkins : PBS is reporting the most relevant investigative journalism on TV today. The Newshour and Bill Moyer's Journal are a couple of examples. PBS has good, responsible programming in general,as opposed to the dumbing down of America junk on network TV.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:51 AM	norm moore : When the commercial 24/7 news programs prefer to cover stories about a dead model (Anna Nicole Smith) and/or the lifestyle decisions of Brittany Spears during an election year then it is simply absurd to question whether the News Hour is relevant. What reality are they living in? Do they live in the same country I do? Did they just land here? The News Hour is the only conventional media source that makes any attempt at helping their viewers understand the issues of our times and doing it concisely. It costs each taxpayer next to nothing - a combo meal at McDonalds is equivalent to 5 years of PBS. The remainder of PBS budget comes from grants and the donations of viewers like myself, without the false infusion of money filtered through advertisers and doled out to the extent that they alone determine. I haven't watched commercial television since PBS came to our city. The gulf in quality of programing is staggering. It's like comparing the Grand Canyon to a ditch at the side of the road - one I'm awestruck by, and the other is handy if my children are car sick or to divert the rain.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:45 AM	Stan Buckman : I watch The News Hour whenever I can on Sydney Australia's SBS it gives a view on major issues of world importance without carrying too much of the local only issues. It seems to go too far in being balanced, but thats better than a one sided diatribe. Perhaps one could ask( tongue in cheek) about the N.Y.Times's relevance as I have sighted very little of their work.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:44 AM	bbishop : I can't imagine television without PBS. I never watch anything else, except Bill Maher! Keep up the good work. Sometimes I feel like the PBS reporters have become too cautious, tho.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:41 AM	darrell drake : Lock Charles McGrath in a room with a television that cannot be turned off and only Fox channel playing. This may be against the Geneva Convention on torture.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:40 AM	Hu Barnes : There is no other TV program that covers objectively and in depth the crucial news stories that I hear every evening on the Jim Lehrer program especially with the Woodruff segments. That is a chief for my supporting our local PBS channels.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:36 AM	Harald Wyndham : PBS remains the best thing on television in America. It is the only source of programming by the People and for the People, without being leveraged by commercial self-interest. And it is always intelligent, engaging, informative and as fair, balanced and unbiased as any media can be in this world. I like it and choose it over other options for daily viewing. Don't let "Them" do anything to take it away. It is our Freedom.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:34 AM	John Witherspoon : While I agree with the comments about the well-deserved rise of NPR, there is nothing on commercial broadcast or cable comparable to Jim Lehrer's NewsHour -- the most evenhanded yet insightful news/public affairs program on television -- nothing comes close. And it's well-known that times are tough for public television fundraising, but to suggest that the credits approach the effect of commercials is to overlook the restrictions in their content (no prices, no competitive comparisons) and their placement -- no interruptions within the program. The Discovery or History Channels will never match Nova or Nature. The current black history genealogies, our local station's (KPBS) special on Alzheimer's, or many other could be cited. It has been awhile since our kids grew up with Sesame Street, but public television remains essential. Public broadcasting has had a funding problem since its earliest days. I understand that, especially for television, times are increasingly tough. Overcome by the tedium of fundraising, people may ignore it. They do so at the risk of undermining a major national resource.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:28 AM	Judy Kayir : Is PBS still relevant? Living in Okinawa with Armed Forces Network news, The News Hour is our antidote to CNN and the big 3 network newscasts. The problem with the News Hour here is that it is shown at l p.m. so we need to tape it to watch it a better hour. Unfortunately we have few other PBS shows--Sesame Street of course and Nightly Business Report are the only others I know of. When I am back in the states I don't find any other news program to rival the News Hour. What was the New York Times writer thinking? Perhaps you were a bit edgier in the old days. Your article about the improvement in care of the war injured sounded too much like the military news we listen to each day. On the whole however, I haven't seen an alternative to the News Hour. When other channels have the audacity to call a one minute report "News in depth", there must be a place for NPR. Keep doing what you are doing. I only wish I could watch more of your programing.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:23 AM	Mark Kusanovich : The Newshour is a important part of our daily lives. There is the appreciation that what is presented is based on a higher standard. The Bill Moyers Journal is another program that deserves high praise. In general all PBS programs are considered to be beneficial to our family, young and old.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:11 AM	Virginia : Yes, PBS is still relevant! Where else on TV can I find balanced news coverage with in-depth reporting on issues and events I consider timely and important? Where else can I find Masterpiece Theater? Mystery? Nova? Antiques Roadshow? And so forth!

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:10 AM	I E Robson : PBS programs have a level of seriousness and elegance and sometimes even edginess that commercial tv has yet to attempt. I do find that the creeping in of corporate feel-good ads touting all they contribute to the general welfare a bit disingenious and that public tv shouldn't be depending on this as a source of revenue. It takes the shine off.

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:10 AM	Wanda Auerbach : Dear Online PBS News Hour: My husband and I almost never miss the Daily News Hour. We are grateful for its fair and broadminded coverage of the news. Moreover, although we have access to at least 50 channels, virtually all we watch are PBS programs: American Experience, NOVA, Nature, Independent Lens, POV, etc. We also contribute to PBS financially each year at the time we give to organizations meaningful to us. Please continue these wonderful programs. Sincerely, Wanda Auerbach

Posted: 02/23/08 at 12:01 AM	Gene Sentz : PBS is the very BEST channel anywhere on television. The Jim Lehrer News Hour is the very BEST news anywhere on television.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:55 PM	Michael H : next weeks article: Is the printed newspaper still necessary?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:54 PM	Jean B : Add another 2 votes to those who think PBS plays a very important role in informing and entertaining the public. Though we have available only PBS and one other (commercial channel), I never feel deprived. When I have the opportunity to view cable channels, I always come back to PBS (CSPAN sometimes has interesting things, but that's hit and miss). I would feel very saddened were the opportunity to view the News Hour, Great Performances, Mystery, Masterpiece Theater, Bill Moyers, Now, Wash Wk, To the Contrary, McLaughlin Group taken away. Hang in there.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:50 PM	jeff ryan : PBS is the alternative[period].

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:45 PM	Hime Fuentes : The news hour on PBS is only one of a few which is independent of all the other commercial news sites that have a propagandist agenda. I'm sick of these commercial news broadcasts and their lies. PBS is at least honest in it's coverage!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:45 PM	G Babb : I would be lost without public television--I don't believe any other news source provides the same depth. I structure my whole day around the Newshour, and look forward to the series of political programs on Friday night. Thanks to everyone who makes these programs happen!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:45 PM	Dick Donaca : In our home we have radio, the internet, cable TV, satellite TV, the newspaper, and several magazine subscriptions. We can't read and watch and listen to everything, so to insure we're always "up on" everything, we make sure we see the PBS topical shows - The NewsHour, Washington Week, Foreign Exchange, Bill Moyers, NOW, etc., plus . . well, everything else. It's always such a relief to watch shows without having to put up with polemics and viewpoint mongering. Long live PBS - and we love our OPB, too.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:44 PM	Clara Coen : PBS is just about the only place where I can get in depth news about the world thanks to the News Hour, Front Line,Bill Moyer Journal, etc. and where I can listen to civil discourse.It is basically the only station I watch. Their programs on science and nature are excellent.Most of the main media station provide nothing but fluff...

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:43 PM	JB : Jim Lehrer is 73?! First, mentioning his age is ageist; second, he might as well be 21. It's all been said, but I just want to add my two cents, which as far as I could read, has not been said. And that is, even though PBS has ads, they all appear at the beginning, so I can enjoy the program without interruption. Second, Cable Schmable. My household pays $70 (and counting) a month for -- how many? -- who cares how many channels that don't, for example, produce enough programs to keep me away from submitting a comment on this website instead of watching something WORTH WATCHING on Friday night, February 22, 2008 (after, I might note, having watched the News Hour). And it only gets worse as it gets more costly. The New York Times should have better things to do. Thank you for listening.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:40 PM	Irma West : I believe that PBS is more important than ever before. It is more informative and entertaining with intelligent programming not found on any of the other TV stations. The N.Y. Times should be discussing the relevance and value of commercial television which is riddled with junk. Our democracy,if it is to survive,is in great need of PBS which educates the public about the serious problems of the day and provides quality entertainment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:32 PM	Thomas Everett Davis : I used to think that a writer for the New York Times could not be sanctimonious. I certainly was wrong. I no longer go to the Times Web site for my news. I'll stick to the Washington Times and PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:31 PM	Carol in Olympia : PBS is our life line. It is the ONE place, my husband and I can depend on to offer educated and informed discussions about the world. We have spent our 40 years of television viewing together watching PBS programming because it is intelligent and probing; entertaining and educating. It reflects "real America". The millions of American viewers within our borders and those living outside our borders, will never allow anyone to take the public broadcasting voice away.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:30 PM	Ron Morra : I could not beleive what I read Sunday Morning. It was so early in the morning I could not comprehend what the Times was trying to say. I don't want to live in a world without PBS. Total TV audience has declined only because the programs are all so bad and stupid and MUST appeal to the lowest common denominator of viewers so be revenue producing. There seems to be no commercial TV programs that expand a viewers knowledge on history, as The Medicis, literature as I, Claudius, news, as Frontline, the News Hour, drama, as Wives of Henry VIII, American Masters. It is a very sad state of afairs when a small group of people, with nothing better to do than to petition, demand, and legislate mores, morals, and quality of life matters which they subscribe to and want everyone else to be subject to.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:29 PM	David French : I was incensed to learn about the article in the NYT. The question in the title (Is PBS Relevant?) by itself made me jump to the conclusion that the NYT has done it again...ravaged my own sensibility by making a value judgement that this wonderful organization, that survives in good measure through the support of the loyal public, isn't. On reading the article, I'm glad that I did not immediately respond to the call by Jim Lehrer for comments, for I would have been very harsh indeed. The article does mention a good number of the programs that I have watched so loyally, and now am pleased to share with my grandchildren (PBS Kids's George, etc.). However, I do sense some jealousy permeating the article, that this virtually commercial free service (save for the sponsor's messages which I can live with far more easily than the trashy pharmaceutical ads with which we are bombarded)recieves such large audiences. We are maybe not in the majority, but the offerings of the commercial TV "entertainment" programs are, simply put, mostly DRECK. Or Schmaltz. Or worse. Whatever happened to the good sense of TV programmers? Some of the ads are even trashier, and even broadcast uncensored during prime viewing time by many minors. There seems to be nothing that challenges higher aspirations than made for TV "reality?? programs. I'm convinced that the major networks have reached the tipping point of no return, with so many ads between short sound/video bites of questionable news. Thank God for Tivo and DVR ability to help viewers bypass the ads. I think having quality programs with fewer ads, for which advertisers would likely gladly pay more for a higher quality viewership that would result, could benefit us all. It PBS Relevant? INDEED it IS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:27 PM	Mike : Mr. McGrath made some good points in his article. There is advertising on PBS. The fundraising, although I am sure it is not even close to waterboarding, I do find tedious. With presidents like Bush this may become even more vital to keep PBS going. I disagree with McGrath that cable TV can supply what PBS provides. Getting quality reporting of news is different than watching C-Span, as he suggests. I find it very difficult to be well-informed regardless of our second-amendment freedoms. There is so little quality on TV, except for PBS, but a lot of quantity.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:26 PM	dutchgirl1 : PBS is essential.May it go on forever. Where else would we have Great Performances, The News Hour (with Mark and David -- a Republican even I can love), Mystery, etc. I could go on and on.And may PBS go on forever.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:25 PM	Debbie H : Just ask the families of Central Illinois. When the bank decided to call in WTVP's loan and we were faced with the real possibility of losing our local station, the community rallied and called in their SOS (Save Our Station) pledges. WTVP needed to come up w/ something like 8 million dollars. With a February 27th deadline, they are only $50,000 away from saving our local PBS station.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:24 PM	Ron Hylen : Got to hand it to NY Times. Fouled up twice in one week. (McCain and PBS. It does not take a scholar to know the value of PBS. In fact, what would we do without it? I fear to think of the answer! If you are hooked on sports or crime shows, the commercial news is ok. But if you care about what is going on, you must watch PBS, Shame on you, NY Times.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:24 PM	Judy : PBS is more important than ever! The Bush appointees to the FCC have been increasing consolidation and decreasing diversity for 8 years. Before that, commercial channels decided their news shows should generate revenue, decreasing the quality substantially. PBS is the only broadcasting system where I can usually hear both sides of an issue and decide for myself what I think about it. The childrens' programming is still far superior to commercial TV. As a cable subscriber, I watch C-SPAN, History Channel, and Military Channel in addition to PBS, CBS, ABC, and NBC. So many of the cable "news" and political channels are about the egos and celebrity of the hosts, anchors, and reporters. PBS serves as the nation's cultural and historical memory. Vive la PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:23 PM	Constance Bay : I love watching PBS. I watch it everyday. I get upset if I can't watch it. I try to get home to watch the NewsHour every workday. I feel that I am missing something if I don't see it. At my job they have CNN or some other news program on in the lounge, I only have lunch for a thirty minutes and it seems that every day I have to hear about Britney Spears or Paris Hilton, I really do not care to hear about their meaningless lives. It does not effect me what is happening to them, so why am I force to hear about them on a news station. That is why I watch PBS!!!! I love everything, Washington Week, Now, The American Test Kitchen, The Children's Programing (well I do wish that they would bring back Wishbone, I think my neice and nephew would love it and it would make them want to read more). I love Mystery, Masterpiece Theater, The History Detectives, well I could go on and on. I wish I could get more than one PBS channel where I live. Thank you for being there.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:20 PM	Jerry Kirk : Let me put it this way: PBS is my refuge from the shallowness of commercial television which is a mile wide and an inch deep. Commercial TV is perhaps the biggest contributor to the dumbing of America. Whoever messes with PBS will have a whole bunch of Me's to contend with.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:18 PM	Damaris Fish : I think PBS is still necessary because it fills a niche that is still not served by commercial network interests. HOWEVER I want to weigh in on the side that I think that some PBS programming is very biased, innapropriately so, and that the mission of PBS of not working off a political agenda, but having the public interest at heart, has been strayed from. Some of the several programs touted this evening on the NewsHour comment at the end of the broadcast (Friday, 22 Feb) as being the most popular were just the ones that I roll my eyes at sometimes. Bias - It is probably unavoidable, in a producer of programs. The problem lies in trying to pass yourself off as unbiased if you are not; that is deceit. That is what PBS was supposed to be reacting to at its inception. For instance, I thought the Frontline/American Experience program, The Mormons, was not professionally done; that has colored how I watch further episodes of Frontline & AmEx. PBS has a public trust at stake. Where are the PBS professional and ethical journalistic standards these days? Does credibility and public trust matter to PBS? I think that is the crux of the issue - whether PBS is still necessary - is PBS different, rising Above the crowd of commercial broadcasting? Or is PBS sinking to the content and marketing tactics of other media options? KBYU is still our favorite PBS affiliate. Damaris Fish, Central Point, Oregon

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:18 PM	Brendan : As a 23 year old and avid viewer of the NewsHour (as well as Frontline, Nova, NOW, Bill Moyers Journal, and other shows) I am petrified of a world without PBS programming. While I think it's fair to debate the need for pure "entertainment" programming on PBS, the debate on whether PBS should offer educational programming (including news, documentaries, etc) begins and ends at the same point: it is absolutely vital that PBS continues to offer these, forever. Unlike entertainment, these informative programs not only educate but also provide a vital public service. The quality of "similar" cable offerings is so poor that, without PBS, the knowledge and serious debate and discussion of issues covered by PBS would like disappear from the public sphere completely. It's painful, I mean physically painful, to watch cable news networks. The current generation (hello Baby Boomers!) has already robbed many in my generation of a quality primary and secondary public education, and have made college studies financially beyond our reach. You have mired my generation in wars that have cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars, and have soiled the image of America that you are handing off to us. Finally, your "me-first" attitude towards spending, both private and public, have created the possibility, for the first time in American history, that the succeeding generation will have a worse material life than their predecessors. So, on behalf of the so often maligned "Millenials" -- also known as your children -- thanks. Those of you who complain about PBS, about it's mustiness or dullness, take a step back and think of the consequences for my generation if PBS disappears. Considering the damage you've already done to our future, PBS may be the only (positive) legacy you leave us.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:16 PM	Molly Bowman-Styles : I've been a fan of PBS for years. What would I do without the News Hour's in-depth news coverage and Frontline's searing investigative reports? I also look forward watching to Masterpiece Theatre, NOW, Bill Moyer's Journal, Washington Week in Review, and American Experience every week. On the other hand, I've grown weary of National Public Radio. Although I still tune in during my morning and evening commutes, I find myself increasingly frustrated with the superfical way NPR frames its radio newscasts. If there is anyone to blame for the "mustiness" of PBS ... and the triviality of NPR ... it's the Bush Administration, whose appointees are determined to undermine the relevancy of public television. What other medium brings Americans together so compellingly, while inspiring us to look beyond ourselves to understand the often complex world we live in? I'm counting the days when a new administration takes the reins of PBS and NPR, and ushers in a brave new era for America's Public Broadcasting System.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:15 PM	Michel Laporte : For more than 20 years now,I have been a reader and listener of The Newshour.No better knowledge of the US can be obtained otherwise by books or university courses.It is there that you can have a glimpse of the best american minds on a panorama of subjects and in depth,time passing.I do not know,on cable television a public performance that gives equivalent understanding and explanation of all kinds of subject.Better than Great Books for a general education.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:14 PM	Tom Madden : Programs like the News Hour are needed and are relevant. It goes in depth and covers pertinent subjects.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:14 PM	Caleb Carr : I originally didn't think I should write anything in this forum, as I've been interviewed by the NewsHour and thought it might be viewed as biased; but now I have to say: Several years ago, I published a book on terrorism. Some critics said it was important, some said it was off-base, but EVERY review or discussion of the book, ESPECIALLY in the New York Times, was based on political bias: EXCEPT the interview I did on the NewsHour. In a segment with Ray Suarez, I was asked questions that were meaningful, insightful, and most of all, genuinely impartial. It was quite a relief, to have this great experience come in the middle of what was my own little firestorm of controversy. I have been watching PBS, especially the Big Five -- the NewsHour, Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, Frontline, and Nature -- since I was a child: and had it not been for the shows I saw there, I would have turned out a very different person, which might have pleased some people, but no matter: the simple truth is, I owe PBS far more than I can express. Ten or fifteen years ago, I could have said the same thing about the NY Times, my home town paper; but having become the partisan, and journalisitically shabby, paper that it has, since the creationg of the NY Times Corporation, I think this entire debate should be rephrased: Is the NY Times any longer relevant? In a world where we need journalistic integrity, is a newspaper that prints salacious rumors about presidential candidates based on unnamed sources anything but another version of Rupert Murdoch's biased empire? PBS was, is, and will always be relevant. The Times has a lot to be ashamed of, this week, and this insane debate is part of that truly deplorable trend. My grandfather was foreign editor of the Times, back in the fifties; he died too young, and about the only good thing I can say about his death is that he didn't have to live through Bill Keller's dismantling of what once was "the newspaper of record," and is now just another tawdry testament to "investigative journalism." Keep it up, NewsHour and PBS: you stand alone. - Caleb Carr

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:11 PM	Kate : I truly admire the work and time invested into the programs on PBS. Especially the News Hour, because it is perhaps the only place where heated debates can transpire, but maintain a balance of integrity and civility. Even though PBS competes with cable networks, intellectual programs and in depth discussions of various topics shouldn't be limited by those who can afford cable, but be avaliable for everyone to learn and enjoy. To address the issue of PBS being chipped away by advertisements, at least it is not another report of the weather.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:10 PM	Louis Derrico : I have expanded cable and it falls short of PBS. All of the commercials repeated endlessly along with channels I never watch. None of them give me any news with decent international coverage or indepth reporting. What is obsolete? The networks, Neilson ratings system, and cable tv. Give me a al carte cable pricing. Shows on PBS that last over 30 years? Sounds like a big complement to me. 10,000 more years of PBS! I am so lucky where I live that I get two PBS stations. I also watch podcasts of other PBS stations on Itunes. Without PBS I would need to double my cable bill and get a converter box to get by.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:10 PM	Dan : My wife and I still call this show "MacNeil Lehrer" since we have been watching it that long. It is the thinking person's news. I appreciate your in depth articles that cannot be found elsewhere. And I love Shields and Brooks. Keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:09 PM	Max Fink : As an American living abroad for the last 7 years, I have watched with mounting concern as the vast majority of American news channels broadcast worldwide have seemingly collectively slipped into a kind of journalistic coma, providing vacuous entertainment (or political demagoguery in the most offensive cases) clothed as “news”. PBS’s Newshour and its Online Newshour counterpart are exceptional in every way. I consider the program a rare bastion of unbiased, penetrating, truly insightful journalism. I think the Newshour provides a unique forum for the best of our national dialogue to be broadcast both within and outside of our borders. For millions of people like me, who value integrity in the News and see it as a contribution to a better world, I don’t think the Newhour’s importance or that of PBS can be underestimated.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:09 PM	Peter Letchford : I am 91, and trust that Jim Lehrer will still be going strong when he gets to that age. If he were British, the Queen would make him a duke, or dook as we call it over here. The Newshour of course is only one of many great programs on PBS, though one has to admit that, when lighting a camp fire, the New York Times does a better job under the kindling than the Newshour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:08 PM	Denise Galligan : I cannot imagine life without PBS. It's the only literate connection that I have with the world. Bill Moyers sends me to Amazon every Friday to buy books. Nature, Nova, Masterpiece, Frontline, American Masters and Ken Burns' documentaries, the latest of which was The War just wouldn't exist without PBS. Where else can one go for in depth reporting like the News Hour? It is a needed respite from broadcast TV and support must continue for it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:07 PM	John Beaver : When anyone questions the relevancy of PBS and our local KPBS I can only assume that they do not watch much of the programming. PBS and its' affiliates are the last bastion of complete, thoughtful and unbiased reporting. There are NO programs that stack up against The Newshour, WW in Review, Nova, Frontline, Bill Moyers Journal, Now and the host of entertaining series. We've turned into a sound bite, video streaming blog world and fuure generations will not know what they have missed when your formats go away. I will do whatever it takes as an individual to maintain your programming. P.S. as this sounds like a Bush/Cheney conspiracy. Thank you, John Beaver

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:07 PM	Leslie Baird : Hi, I was just watching the Newshour, and wanted to comment about this article in the New York times. Of course, PBS is absolutely and positively still necessary. I am a devoted Oregon Public Broadcasting member. I think none of the programs on commercial networks, do compare with my favorite Friday night programs: NOW, Bill Moyers' Journal, the Mcloughlin Report (which by the way, I think is very inciteful, and hilarious at times, the way the debaters talk over each other trying to get a word in edgewise, and where else would you see Pat Buchanan duking it out with wonderful liberal spokespersons!). We watch the Newshour every night faithfully, and very much appreciate the fact that we don't have to see all of those commercials and the fact that we can watch very in depth news coverage without soundbites and distracting graphics. There is just nothing like Public Broadcasting on the air. I just wish our government would support this wonderful set of stations again, as OPB needs to have membership drives so often (about every month and 1/2) in order to stay in existence. Why can't Government "pony" up some money as it did in the past? Thanks for your efforts! Leslie Baird, OPB member and supporter, Portland, Oregon

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:05 PM	Judith and Gerald Farrington : We cannot imagine a world without the perspective of PBS programing from the News Hour to Sesame Street. Network and cable news programs are focused on entertainment and are quite biased. We need the balance of the News Hour. We rarely miss it and Friday evening is often dedicated to the entire series of news and investigative programs. We need this sane alternative to commercial television and cable.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:03 PM	eli s. : we live in fresno which was a vast wasteland until years ago when i discovered that by adjusting our antenna we could connect with kqed in san francisco, a connection that not only changed our viewing habits but our lives because we were getting news we could not get anywhere else. we couldn't wait for the evening news. in time - too long for us, actually - fresno got its own pbs station. we have been hooked ever since. if there is any problem, it's the effect it has had on our octogenerian way of life. we stay up longer than we should because of moyer. delay cocktails until after the news hour. without exception, the information and insights delivered by pbs are the best, intriguing, lively, most important - and, i will argue the most unbiased. give us pbs or give us death...

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:01 PM	EMM : I have watched or listened to the NewsHour for years, usually while fixing dinner. Obviously, I'm a dedicated fan and right for your demographic. But I do have some issues to raise. 1) I honestly feel the NewsHour provided the paradigm for Fox News and their "fair and balanced" mantra. Regardless of the subject, there are always two viewpoints even if one is far too trivial to be given a voice. This tends to legitimize or create issues and stories where none really exist. Politicians, as well as other people make use of this format to spin and set false narratives into the public dialogue. 2. The NewsHour may be cutting edge now in terms of graphics and high definition pictures, but it is often naive in the way that it trusts institutional voices. If it's been criticized for stuffiness, I think this is at the heart of that issue. 3) As a news show, the NewsHour often runs well behind the stories. For instance, tonight's news summary said that the Pentagon criticized Senator Obama's anecdote about troops in Afghanistan being ill-equipped, saying it was improbable. Earlier in the day, Jake Tapper of ABC News had confirmed the details of the story with the captain who reported them to the Obama campaign and had posted that information on his blog. Does the NewsHour have someone checking stories not just from the wires but on the reliable blogs? Often I feel more informed than either the news headlines or the guests or commentators. Basically, my gripes run toward what seems to be a stultified mindset on the NewsHour when it comes to what news really is. But I still listen because of the wide-ranging nature of your reports. Thank you for them.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:59 PM	Edith Hedgecock : PBS is my companion every day. I appreciate the clear news broadcasts on PBS Radio during the day, with All Things Considered, as well as the wide variety of informative guests on Fresh Air. Weekends bring me Sound and Spirit, The Metropolitan Opera broadcasts and the Commonwealth Club. Evening PBS television programs that I watch regularly are The News Hour , Washington Week, Bill Moyers, and many more. I can't say enough about what PBS means to me. Thankis for being there!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:57 PM	charlie : Necessary? Of course. And the best balance is NRP radio with PBS together, what at team! Jim, Judy, Gwenn, Ray, Marc and David, what stellar members of the News Hour team. I could do without the 10-30 second infomercials, but a small price to pay. I hardly watch anything else, on non-cable TV, except for occasional sports. The American melting pot culture really needs PBS/NRP, as people are reading much less these days. I would like to see them trying harder to attract our kids' generation X and Y, though.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:56 PM	Muriel Garvey : It is Mr. McGrath's opinion that is not necessary; PBS is entirely necessary - if we are ever to get at the truth. For compared to the commercial networks, PBS alone has a host of programs such as the NewsHour, Bill Moyer's Journal, Frontline, Expose and others which are examples of journalism at its finest. Great issues facing our society are examined with a depth and intelligence that can make one a better citizen just by watching these programs. As if that weren't enough, the absolute best in a wide range of the arts from Great Performances to Helen Mirren in Prime Suspect satisfies every taste. Nature and Nova are the other huge favorites in our home, keeping us riveted to our seats. Relevant? Necessary? If it weren't for PBS, I'm not sure how much television my husband and I would bother with.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:56 PM	Jeremiah O'Shea : I was dismayed to learn of the controversy concerning PBS. I am an elderly man living part time in Florida and consider PBS far and away the best programming on television. I would be devastated if this programming were curtailed or discontinued. Please let me know what I can do to ensure the continuance of Public Broadcasting on television. I have pledged $100 to attempt to forstall any discontinuance of service. Thank you. Jeremiah O'Shea

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:54 PM	Dianna Henning : Dear PBS, I am greatly alarmed that The New York Times would even question the relevance of PBS which is our very favorite station. For my husband (Kam Vento, college instructor) and me (poet& former teacher) it is the only intelligent inquiry into matters of great importance to this country and to the world at large. We find the debates on the News Hour fair and balanced, always willing to present the other side of any debate. We deeply appreciate not being inundated by commercials throughout all of the programming on PBS. We live in a rural area in Lassen County, California. We feel the world is brought to us via PBS, and we deeply appreciate cultural programming such as Masterpiece Theater, Mystery and Frontline. We also love Nova and Bill Moyers, as well as NOW. We would also like to see NOW become a half hour longer because what they discover could be better developed through more time. PBS is not unlike BBC. Intelligent, respectful and sometimes controversial which is what this country needs in order to uncover the truth in relevant subjects, especially given the current administration's (Bush) curtailment of information. PBS encourages and helps create passion. Much like Obama, PBS stirs passion in the hearts and minds of its viewers. I am moved beyond my own personal obsessions by PBS, and my husband caries the legacy of PBS’s thoughtful inquiry into his classes. Could we do without PBS? No, I think my heart would starve without the inspiration I feel from this station’s programming. The soul too needs nurturing and if not PBS, who would accomplish this? Sincerely, Dianna Henning

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:53 PM	Sam Kirk : I get 98% of my information from The News Hour and Bill Moyers. You guys are incredible. Thanks for all the great programs.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:53 PM	Tony from Fairfax, VA : PBS is 90-95% of the television programming that I watch. I do feel that after the republican congress took an axe to the CPB that PBS became weakened and less independent but PBS in my opinion remains a National Treasure and the republican record and philosophy as evidenced by their deeds as quixotic as they come.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:52 PM	Ann Pasley : Jim Lehrer's PBS Newshour is highly relevant, today more than ever. It is the most objective news program available. It is our preferred and only choice of newscasting. PBS is the only TV we watch because of its superior programming. Other TV offerings are not worth watching. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:52 PM	Louis LaPierre : I agree with the TIMES description of what PBS is, old news. Nothing much has happened since the News Hour became an hour except for Ken Burns. It seems to be about money. Where is all the ad money going? What about the interminable month long pledge "weeks" featuring hasbeens, wannabees, and neverwuzzes? I have tried to access a financial statement and have not succeeded. I have a specific complaint about all news shows, including the News Hour. In this election year the coverage is all about process; Primary schedules, delegate counts, political bases, the occasional misspeak, etc. There is little substance, i.e., who has the better health care plan cannot be determined by the news coverage. PBS hasn't become any worse since the half hour, but it hasn't become better either.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:51 PM	David Foltz : I can't imagine the day when PBS would cease to be necessary. I have been an avid viewer and grateful supporter for as long as I can remember; to lose it now or in the future is inconceivable and would create a big void in my life as well as in the nation's media options. PBS programming is beyond reproach--the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer and his colleagues who give in depth analysis of current events, Frontline's investigative reporting, Tavis Smiley's enlightening interviews of people making a difference, American Experience that informs on American culture, Bill Moyer's Journal that discloses critical issues that commercial stations won't touch, Independent Lens, Now, and other programs make PBS an indespensible broadcast network, as timely and relevant as it can be. In my view PBS has no competitor.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:48 PM	4U&? : I think PBS is great. Now, I must decry your ability to use your media pulpit to defend yourself against other media assault. Imagine how many victims of media mistreatment would like the same possibility.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:45 PM	John Berninghausen : On behalf of my entire family, four of us, I find myself rushing to add our voices to the thousands of others who have spoken out in favor of PBS. Is PBS necessary? What a question! It's a bit like asking "Are public libraries a good idea?" "Should there be magazines?" or "Does the citizenry of a democracy need a variety of information and informed points of view responsibly presented without a commercial or political agenda?" YES! PBS is necessary, and indeed it does play a vital role in the education of our country and to sustaining the vitality of democratic institutions and civic life in the USA. Our two children grew up with "Sesame Street" and then graduated to the other good choices for younger viewers, especially the programing on nature and science and history topics, TV shows one finds fairly consistently on PBS and certainly more than on other channels. I would like to pointedly address and to "debunk" one of the apparent assumptions in the NY Times piece, i.e., the assumption that there are plenty of worthy alternatives now available via cable, thus decreasing the necessity of a publicly funded PBS for the viewing public. WHOA! Not the case at all! To begin with, there are those of us in this country (and we do matter even if we constitute only a small minority of the total population) who do NOT live in a neighborhood or distric where any cable service is available. For us to watch any cable channels, we would have to install and pay the fees for a dish antennae to pull in satelite TV signals. For 30 years we have resisted that option. We are doing fine with over-the-air signals broadcast by PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS and FOX, the five stations we do manage to pull in with our large, rooftop antennae. (We live outside a small town in rural America.) Second, when traveling across the country, or when we did live for a half year in a large US city, we have had the experience of turning on the TV and surfing through the many channels provided on cable services. Several of those channels (CNN, C-SPAN, Discovery, the History Channel, A&E, HBO, Turner Classics, ESPN) did occasionally provide something that one of us were happy to settle back and view. More times than not, however, we found that if there was any program being broadcast that caught our interest, it was the one playing on the local PBS station. In our case, the question could be rephrased: "Is television necessary?" That's a more difficult question, I suppose, and doubtless we could live without it if we had to. But I'd rather not. Our whole family often watched the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour and Washington Week in Review together on Friday evenings over the decades. We are better-informed citizens for having done so; certainly we are better informed on many complex issues when we go to the polls to vote in elections because of the news coverage provided on PBS. When one adds in Masterpiece Theater, Antiques Roadshow, the American Experience, the McLaughlin Group, Frontline, BBC World News, the travel shows, Great Performances, Nature, the cooking shows, the specials on art and geography, health and environmental issues, well, the thought of losing PBS becomes even more unpleasant. Is television without PBS necessary? No, I don't think we'd watch on our TV more than an hour a week, maybe less, except for the fact that PBS is on the air. We do contribute every year and we try to reach deep when making that contribution. In our family, as in many others, whether living in a rural, small town, suburban or urban setting, PBS is the main deal and the primary reason for us to "turn on the TV". Thanks, PBS, and keep it up for the generations yet to come!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:45 PM	Kate Robertson : My husband and I are news junkies. We listen to NPR anytime we are in the car, we subscribe to the New York Times from here in our midwestern city. We each grew up reading The Christian Science Monitor daily and today rarely miss our daily dose of BBC news and Charlie Rose. All that said, our week is punctuated by The NewsHour and Washington Week in Review with Gwen Ifell each Friday. Everything in our home stops for this hour. We are certain that we will hear honest, candid, refreshingly accurate and fair reporting. Case in point, tonight (after watching hours and hours of CNN and MSMBC today since our children were home for a snow day) I couldn't have been more convinced of the necessity for PBS than I was during Washington Week. After hearing pundits, commentators and analysts say that Hillary Clinton's best moment during the Austin debates last night...citing her authenticity and warmth...it was stunning to see video clips from a John Edwards speech and a 90s Bill Clinton speech from which Hillary had taken her remarks verbatim....WORD FOR WORD. This was after she attacked Obama for the same thing. All day long I waited for someone to really probe this on the other stations...but NOTHING of substance. But aahhh thank God for PBS. There it was...and not only discussed, but with documenting video. Our children have grown up on PBS...I have learned to cook and do home renovations with Hulia, Jacques, and Normie... Thank you...thank you ...thank you...please keep providing us with this precious gift of PBS. I

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:44 PM	Donald True : My first thought when I heard that someone was questioning the need for PBS, was a joke. I'm now persuaded it is not a joke. I think PBS is needed now more than ever. The Lerher News Hour and Washington Week in Review with Gwen Ifill are the two news programs that I feel confindent of getting an unbiased report of the issues of the day. Frontline, Now, Bill Moyer's Journal, the American Experience, and Masterpiece Theater are among the many programs I watch and encourage my grandchildren to watch. Yes, PBS is needed. Thank you for the fine job you all do. God bless you and best wishes to you all. Donald True.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:43 PM	George : I trust PBS because it has less control over it by advertisers than other networks. Lets bring back the time when you can donate part of a tax return to PBS I usually can't afford it but would do it then

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:43 PM	Charlene Butler and Michael Davis : Not only is PBS THE best channel for news and entertainment, it is CRITICAL for our democracy. It is the only place that we can get the kind of indepth reporting on social and political issues that make a democracy possible.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:42 PM	Michael Wyn : PBS has been an important source of news, information, entertainment and education for our family for as long as I can remember. Certainly, the answer to the question of PBS necessity is a resounding affirmation.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:41 PM	Krystala Kalil : The News Hour and Washington Week in Review are the only TV shows I watch. I do so because they give me a broad overview of the news and additional features of interest. I appreciate the balanced approach, and hearing more than one side to a story. PBS provides an important service to our democracy. Krystala Kalil

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:39 PM	Michael E. Franzen : In a country, any country, the citizens will always be in need of a news and entertainment netword such as PBS. A group of stations called PBS, the only stations in the US that actually do belong to its citizens, stations who serve our needs, not the needs of corporate greed. What the real enemy of all forms of broadcasting is, the FCC. They have come to a point where the chairman seems to think he is god almighty (note small g and small a)and is so into himself and his own importance that he does not even listen to the people he serves. I have sat in on sesions where the public has been invited to comment and this ___ sits up in front, smiles for the cameras, yawns when he thinks he can get away with it, and even works on his own fingernails rather than pay any attention too the people he was put in his position to serve. He and most of the FCC staff now serve not the people, but themselves. Digital is not all its cracked up to be. Be that as it may, has anyone ever taken the time to ask the FCC Chairman what the frequencies that are being given up in order to get this great new median of digital, going to be used for? Has anyone taken the time to find out that the FCC has already sold off those frquencies and especially to whom? I know the public would be shocked if they knew the truth. Now lets turn to the word service. Media is met to serve, serve who, the public. Do they? How many newspapers also now ownt he largest competative media outlets in our nations major cities? Why are so few in control of so many of our media outlets? Why can a local newspaper also own the largest local TV station and the biggest radio stations and even worse, why can one company own two of the same broadcast properties in a given service area? Have you ever taken the time to check into their news rooms, the newsrooms that are met to serve us? I could go on. I want every single man, woman and child, in the US to know the truth. Every person who thinks for themselves need to seriously think about PBS and give it our full support. We also need to contact our Congress person and tell them its time to reign in the FCC. They are selling us out. The airwaves are met to be free and to belong to everyone, yet the FCC is consistently carving the airwaves up and giving them to the highest bidder. KEEP PBS and we will keep the USA strong and free. Give into corporate greed and remember what happened in Germany when people didn't think for themselves. Naturally major news papers want to destroy PBS, they want it all for themselves!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:38 PM	Stanley Lewis : I turn PBS on at 6:00PM and turn it off at 10:00PM. How else would we find out what is going on in the world?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:36 PM	Walter Remy : PBS is more necessary than ever. Journalism in the US is being challenged by the decline in newspaper readership and consequential industry consolidation and job cuts. Such an environment can only accentuate conformism and limit independent reporting in order to provide the public multidimensional viewpoints on complex political, social and economic issues. In the US the press is free but not as independent as it once was when newspaper ownership was more distributed. A second factor is the general lack of in-depth reporting which the "for profit" corporate press can no longer afford. This leads to superficial coverage and explanation of news events and results in bored readership accelerating the decline of newspapers and magazines. To some extent this could be counteracted with online versions offering more in depth research and content and alternate viewpoints from foreign online news organizations. I suppose the supporting revenue model has not been developed yet. Given this, PBS seems to offer an indispensable alternative with insightful reporting and support for cultural events we need. Somehow education, culture and dare I say healthcare are better served outside the business model. Walter Remy

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:35 PM	Carol Schmitt : NOVA has become an important teacher for me personally, and also in my profession as a public school teacher. The July segment on emergent complexity still reverberates in my life, not as entertainment, but as something truly life-altering. I have been reading more about it and sharing it with others. It offers me a beautiful scientific paradigm for "emptiness," for non-reification, for how consciousness just arises when simple rules are followed. CURIOUS was also a wonderful show, taking my emotional reactions to life out of the realm of the personal and into specific brain chemistry. I almost never miss the NEWSHOUR and am most grateful to PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:34 PM	Jose Escovar-Kousen : PBS is a light in the darkness of the commercial television that we have available in the USA. Hence it is necessary now more than ever at time when the American mind needs a challenge of ideas and a better understanding of the Arts and Science. News programs like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer stand out for their objectivity in the middle of the major commercial networks that are more interested in promoting their own agenda than in truly informing the public. People like Bill Moyers and programs like Now, NOVA, Nature have no match even in channels like Discovery and the History channel. We need PBS now and ever

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:33 PM	Elizabeth Pellett : How could we possibly do without PBS for news, the arts and other of our passions such as cooking. But most of all I want to comment on the excellence of Vote 2008. It is the best site for election data on the web. Congratulations!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:33 PM	norma Saltz : ) PBS is more than "relevant" to me--it is essential. In fact, it is virtually the only TV I watch. Why? Because programs like the News Hour with Jim Lahrer, Frontline, Masterpiece Theater, Nature, Wide Angle Lens, Americqn Experience, Great Performances and the specials--to name only a few--are programs which entertain and inform on a high level without having to cater to the lowest human emotions in order to maintain ratings. After watching one of the PBS program, I almost always feel I've gained something rally worth having. Most network TV is "empty calories"--at best, nothing but entertaining and distracting for the momen, and at wors--!!! If viewers are unhappy about commercial sponsorship of public TV, they should either contribute as much support as they possibly can or else lobby Congress to restore public funding Public TV is a treasure which must not be lost.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:32 PM	jede : You can have my PBS when you can pry the remote from my cold, dead hands! Don't mess with PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:30 PM	farley cunningham : yes pbs is still necessary. for fresh points of view

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:30 PM	Nelson Foss : PBS is the ONLY place I trust to get my news. Although the recent revelation that PBS is taking donations from big corporations is troubling.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:29 PM	Corinne Gutjahr : PBS, radio and TV keep us informed and entertained. The News Hour, Bill Moyers, NOW, Washington Week, Mystery,the Britcoms, Masterpiece Theatre as well as NPR's Diane Reim, Terry Gross, Morning Edition, All Things Considered help keep us informed and entertained. We are fortunate to be able to connect with 4 PBS channels and 2 NPR stations! Who could ask for more? Who can say that PBS has seen it's day? Not us!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:29 PM	Gord Metcalfe : Though I am a Canadian, I am a life-long devoted admirer of PBS television. When PBS goes into pledge-month mode my weekly TV consumption hours simply drop. This Old, House, Frontline, America's Test Kitchen, Now, five consecutive weeknights of the venerable Jim Lehrer News Hour, Mystery, Soundstage, Tavis Smiley, Bill M's journal, so many terrific series. I can tell you that I would probably disconnect if PBS were not available. PBS is relevant. The New York Times, on the other hand, is increasingly less relevant and I say that with respect because I have always thought that it was a great paper and still find it engaging and very well edited with some very interesting content. However, the recent additions in editorial staff are very disturbing. for example, William Krystol, co-founder of PNAC shilling for the Bush administration and the military industrial complex, consistently wrong on all his lofty predictions, a transparent propagandist for endless war who is presented as a 'serious' journalist when in fact he is in exactly the league as Bill O'Reilly minus the Bill's fairly serious psychosis. For the newly tabloidized NYT to be dissing PBS is at once ludicrous and unconscionable. A case of the pot calling the teapot black.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:27 PM	gladys jane lewis : PBS is definitly necessary. Commercial stations are dumbing down our thinking. Nowhere else can you find in-depth coverage of what is going on. The world is changing too fast, and we need someplace to get facts, not entertainment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:26 PM	John Iffland : PBS NewswHour provides an efficient and thorough presentation of news pertaining to major issues of importance to serious citizens who wish to contribute to the polictical decisions being made by their government representatives.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:26 PM	Whatever! : Of course PBS is necessary-it is the best!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:24 PM	Jiggs Riley : I don't see how any major news organization could make the assertion that PBS is irrelivant in today's world. In our house, KPCC radio is on in the kitchen is on all day long bringing local and international news, humor, music and entertainment. In the evening The News Hour is a must with up to the minute, thorough and balanced coverage of world events. Well researched, well written and succinctly presented. It's the best. Commercial TV or radio doesn't even come close.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:22 PM	Jim Meehan : If I could only have one channel it would be the PBS channel. I would have a hard time giving up the Steelers, but I would rather have each day's "News Hour".

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:20 PM	Simon Taylor : I have been watching the (McNeil-)Lehrer Newshour since the early 1980s, and much other PBS programming, too, and I have observed that the once-commercial free zone called PBS has been overtaken with corporate sponsors and lengthy advertisements, albeit at the beginning and end of programs, not interrupting them in the middle. The best programs, like Frontline, seem to be appearing less and less; instead of investigative journalism, there's more fluff. With respect to the Newshour, I don't think that it was very good in the 80s; the guests are now and have always been boring centrists. I thought that one of the main raisons d'etre of PBS was to allow the expression of minority viewpoints, but let me tell you (as a democratic socialist) that I feel that my worldview, and the opinions of people like me (a not insubustantial part of this American population), are completely excluded from PBS programming and nowhere is this more egregious than on the Jim Lehrer Newshours, where leftwing viewpoints are totally absent. Where is Noam Chomsky? Where is Howard Zinn? Where are the fine writers from The Nation? Leftwing professors, too numerous to mention? They're not on the Jim Lehrer Newshour. They're never on the Jim Lehrer Newshour. And that is why, as long as this farce of objectivity continues, I will NEVER, NEVER support PBS, because my worldview is invisible and unheard on PBS. I get my news from reading The Nation and listening to Amy Goodman's Democracy Now on Pacifica Radio.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:17 PM	Ann P. White : I am a 66 y/o caucasian woman who holds down two jobs as a social worker (MSW, LCSW) and an Adult Ed ESL instructor (MA in Applied Linguistics). The nights I get to watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer are special to me, b/c I'm something of a news junkie. I worked in Central America as an educator for a refugee community for 4 years, (1988-92) during local civil wars, became fluent in Spanish, and use that knlg. in both of my current jobs, and in interpreting world and domestic events. I've learned to be critical of the unspoken ear of national censorship, realize that my busy life does not permit me to keep up with scholarly reading on all areas of the world, and need PBS to keep me apprised of what's going on around the world. I'd like to think they owe nothing to nobody, but know that may not be completely true, but that at least they acknowledge conflict of interest with their underwriters. It's rare for the networks (I don't buy cable) to say "we were forbidden to say xxx, were encouraged to say xxx," etc. although anybody with sense knows this goes on in conflictual stories. In five years hence, when I've retired and may buy cable, I just might be out in front of their corporate offices questioning why they said this or didn't say that. I am sure PBS has its bias, but so far I can live with it, and even enjoy it. WE NEED THE VOICE OF PBS!!! We need a voice which will speak on national and international affairs with a thoughtful balance of pro and con. I need to know what the opposition is thinking, and also what errors and victories my camp has encountered in the past 24 hrs. I NEED THE LEHRER NEWS HOUR!!! I NEED FRONTLINE! I NEED NOVA! AND I LOVE MASTERPIECE THEATER! So why are we so terrified of PBS? What's the point of view (POV) that will be lost to commercials on erectile disfunction and arthritis meds? Gee, ya mean we might actually be encouraged to THINK??? Dangerous for a democracy, no doubt, as the forefathers recognized. But some of us will continue to do just that: think and talk, and if PBS isn't up and running, just think where we might run amok. MEGAWD, they might actually talk to my neighbors! That's what comes from the mouth of a social wkr. trained in community organizing, and an ESL teacher. If PBS isn't there, then look out for what comes next. 'Cuz we ain't goin' back into the caves, those of us who hunger for a pov different from White House censorship on both national and internation affairs. Maybe I'm naive, but I'll stay with PBS for a while yet. Toodle. Ann P. White

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:16 PM	burke : As a regular viewer and grateful contributor, I find PBS programming to be the among the very best, most diverse and culturally literate. My next message is to my Congressional representatives for their support of continued and increased funding.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:15 PM	Lynne Shapiro : Musty? PBS? Absolutely not. PBS is about the only new source that does not confuse intellectually engaging the viewer with entertaining the viewer. Apparently there are two million of us who enjoy exercising our intellect with information,debate and exposé. PBS had the courage to bring Bill Moyers back for an hour! My only criticism is that here on the west coast, I get two broadcasts of Tavis and have to stay up very late for Charley. One of the most exciting news reports for me was Gwen Ifel talking to Margaret Warner in Paris on the eve of the French election: great questions, electric answers and cultural authenticity. GOOD JOB!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:14 PM	Jeffrey L. Porrello : All I watch is PBS here in Los Angeles. I don't have cable or satellite. I don't need them. I have a digital television receiver and I receive 3 PBS stations over the air in beautiful digital quality. KCET, KOCE & KLCS. These three station all multicast. This means (in my case) I receive a total of 12 choices from the three stations. 28.1, 28.2, 28.3 & 28.4 from KCET. 50.1, 50.2, 50.3, & 50.4 from KOCE. 58.1, 58.2, 58.3 & 58.4 from KLCS. This means there is almost certainly something on which will enrich my life either through education or entertainment. I wouldn't want to live without PBS and I need nothing more!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:14 PM	Jane Cartney : It's quite simple: if PBS were to disappear, I wouldn't need a television set.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:13 PM	newshourwatcher : PBS is well worth the troubles it has. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is one of the only news programs on television with any depth to their pieces and debates that do not sadly become little better than shouting matches filled with partisan opinion.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:13 PM	Franz Schmidt : 95% of mine and my children's TV viewing consists of either PBS, or live sporting events on network TV. In our rural setting, we don't have the option of cable and don't feel the need to pay a sattelite company to have access to content that is of questionable value. Has PBS outlasted its position deserving public funding? Not in my mind. We watch the children's shows daily, and my kids are all familiar with and enjoy BBC World News, Nightly Business Report, Newshour, NOVA, the home improvement shows, and the cooking shows. This all is postive programming that helps with my own desire for information and my kids' development. The trash on the networks--I can't even let my kids watch network TV because even the commercials for programming are over the edge--reflects the decline of our culture. PBS offers a reasonable alternative to reasonably moral people who are interested in informative and entertaining television. Especially those who don't want to invest in subscription services for access to more of the programming that reflects the general decline in social values nationally. Keep PBS going. Jim Lehrer is my idol, and Ray Suarez is an outstanding heir-apparent to continue the mission. I won't even bother to comment on the relevancy of a New York newspaper's commentary to Native Texans.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:13 PM	Barbara Buttel : Without PBS I would have no reason to watch televison. There is no place on cable or the networks to find the arts so beautifully presented, a few voices that can be trusted such as Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose. A more honest view of the state that can be trusted. Frontline, Masterpiece Theater, Great Performances, American Experience, so many. What cable or commercial channel gives American people this amazingly fine experience? The Newshour is our news source, not perfect but so much better than any cable or commercial station. Washington Week. The list goes on and on. Thank you for letting me express my opinion. Sincerely, Barbara Buttel, North Carolina.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:12 PM	Bertha Siegel : PBS is my source of news on a daily basis. My husband and I watch The Jim Lehrer News Hour daily; Washington Week with Gwen Ifel, which we would never miss; Charlie Rose interviews, which are varied and in depth; Bill Moyers discussions and interviews, a brilliant man and great interviewer; NOW with David Brancaccio with investigative reporting; Masterpuece Theatre, which is drama as good as you can ever get on TV; The American Experience. PBS is special and unique and we would be lost without it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:12 PM	Joan Stupler : Although I find many interesting programs on other channels, I find that I view Channel 13 significantly more than any other station. I am a very long time member of Thirteen, and would sorely miss it if it were no longer available.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:12 PM	Virginia & Gilbert Roy : We tape the Jim Lehrer NewsHour every day, Bill Moyers Journal when he is on, and Washington Week in Review - just to be sure we do not miss one. The only other news we watch is BBC World News and the Nightly Business Report. We are a PhD linguist, retired after 34 years teaching Chinese at major university who loves NASCAR, WNBA, and NCAA basketball and football, and his spouse (with a mere MA in history) who have lived in the Far East, Middle East, west and east coasts of the USA and even in Kansas and Puerto Rico. Along with NPR, there is no better balanced and nor insightful news broadcast on US TV or Radio that we have found worth watching. We have donated annually to our local PBS and NPR stations for decades and will continue to watch and donate to both.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:12 PM	kobby : This is interesting!Even the African Immigrant to the USA has come to love and respect PBS for the extra mile it goes to provide World News which sometimes have my own country Ghana news in it. Can the other Cable Networks do the same? PBS no commercial programming is the key to it's success and therefore must be supported at all cost. The other networks can actually learn from PBS about how diverse america is becoming. PBS MUST stay!.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:12 PM	Robert Krasny : I rely on PBS and NPR. Their funding should be raised, not reduced. There are some programs I don't care for, but others I consider essential. Now on sabbatical in Kyoto, I listen to NewsHour. I'm a loyal fan of Jim Lehrer and I still miss Bob Edwards on NPR.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:11 PM	Helga Andrews : I have just listened to Bill Moyers once again bring us information we wouldn't otherwise have. The Times reporter can complain about Moyers and Brancaccio and their earnest hand-wringing, but I say that our country has desperate need of that kind of earnestness--and I don't find it in the Times either. Keep it up, PBS; along with C-span and the BBC it's all I listen to. The rest of that surfeit of channels is just a wasteland, alas.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:10 PM	Robert J Webb : PBS is like that real smart uncle that drops by and you love it when he comes by because you know he knows about the stuff you want to know. Most of my television watching time is spent watching PBS. as far as I'm concerned PBS has the best programing on television. I had cable but I kept finding myself turning back to KQED here in San Francisco, CA I saved myself some money and dropped cable. The rest of television is just something to occupy my time when a rerun that I'm not interested in seeing twice comes on PBS.(That and the Ballroom dancing show!) Please say "Hi!" to Gwen Iffel (Eyefull!) for me. Thank you. Sincerely, Robert J Webb

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:09 PM	richard shaw : the newshour has been, and I'm sure will continue to be the best source of quality and relevant information about current happenings! Long live the newshour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:09 PM	Joyce in Arizona : I have been a PBS watcher and supporter for many, many years. As a former early childhood educator, I know firsthand the value of PBS children's programming. I am a person who prefers in-depth, no frills news coverage. Sadly, this is no longer available on network or cable television, so I rely on the Lehrer NewsHour each and every evening. I can always count on learning the details of the most important issues of the day - real journalism; no spin; no shouting; no commercials; both sides represented on controversial issues. For quality entertainment, I never miss a "Mystery" or Masterpiece Theater presentation. I could go on and on....Frontline, American Experience, NOW, Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose.... In my opinion PBS IS A NATIONAL TREASURE!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:09 PM	akorce : PBS News and information are the only television resources that I trust. I have found balance in their views, despite the narrow vision of many political leaders. Corporate media serves itself and not its viewers. We would be a great less democratic without public television.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:07 PM	George H. Rooney : The very idea of raising such a question is ridiculous. With the decline in great daily newspapers and the rise of psuedo-news organizations, such as the right-wing partisan Fox News and Rupett Murdoch's take-over of the Wall St. Journal, the nightly PBS News Hour with Jim Leher is one of the last vestiges of honest, in-depth unbiased reporting of national issues. PBS programs such as Nova, Frontline, NOW and Bill Moyers Journal also offer in-depth coverage of science, world affairs and current events. I somewhat still agree with Newton Minnow's observation back when I was a college student that TV is a "vast wasteland." Seinfeld was the last network TV program that I watched regularly. Now I watch televized sports and PBS. That's it. PBS is quite necessary to me and is vital as a source of quality information to all Americans.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:06 PM	Gilder : My favorite channel to watch is PBS!!! I believe you give quality entertainment, information, news, Mystery Hour, Masterpiece (which I can hardly wait to watch on Sunday evening) and History articles. Thank you. I personally feel their comments (NYT) don't warrant acknowledgement as the question is an outright ridiculous question to the average American. Keep on doing what you are doing, I do enjoy your master piece theatre, your Rick Steves and your programs on animals and geological conditions etc. Thank you for your Service and programs for the Publics entertainment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:05 PM	Connie D : PBS and especially the News Hour are essential! Just consider the travesty of how all of the non-PBS news shows covered Anna Nichole Smith and still cover Brittney Spears. To their credit, the News Hour has never sunk that low. When I am deployed with the Navy, I miss the show and resume watching as soon as I return. If Jim Lehrner ever retires, I shall go into mourning. Keep up the great work!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:03 PM	del paul : PBS is LESS relevant than in the past when we didn't have the History channel, discovery, health, C-span, etc. How about if PBS would team up with the History channel for example and have just a few shows sponsored by PBS on it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:01 PM	Bill Wells : What a dumb question! I can't remember the last time I watch a network news program. But I watch the NewHours several times a week. It provides thoughtful interviews with key public figures. And it provides an unbiased perspective. It stimulates my thinking rather than "amusing me to death."

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:01 PM	Jim Watson : PBS is a valuable alternative to commercial television. News is presented in depth. The science programs provoke thought and provide insight. Huell Howser is a most entertaining social curiosity. American Heartland is great. Gwen Ifil is an excellent news source. Public television is all we watch. Keep it happening!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:00 PM	Nancy Mc : My husband and make a point to be home on Friday nights to watch the Lehrer News Hour, Nightly Business Report, This Week In Northern California, and Washington Week in Review. During the week I listen to podcasts during the day. We love the variety of programming we can choose from. It is relevant in our lives.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 10:00 PM	Art Feldra : To flourish a democracy requires an informed citizenry. There is not better source of relevant information than PBS. Charlie Rose is at the top of the list followed by Washington Week, Bill Moyer’s Journal, Now, Frontline to name a few.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:59 PM	Marcella : I do not subscribe to cable and watch little commercial television. I watch PBS almost every night and I'm a dues paying member of my local PBS station. I watch the News Hour, Antiques Roadshow, Nov, Frontline, Nightly Business Report, Charlie Rose and Masterpiece Theater. I particularly look forward to the entire Friday Night line up of Washington Week, Now and Bill Moyers Journal. If PBS didn't exist I would only watch DVDs on my TV set.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:58 PM	Mrs. Deanne Vandernoot : I can't imagine not having the News Hour with Jim Lehrer every night. I look forward to this format which is so comprehensive and informative. I hope to encourage my grandchildren as they get older to make PBS their station of choice.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:58 PM	Susan K. Frank : Is PBS Newshour pertinent? You bet it is - you cannot compare any other major news network to the kind of coverage supplied by PBS. I have been supporting my local PBS affiliate for years. Why? Because the rest of the news presenters are a bunch of "no Brainers" who can only read the news and give inane commentary that is only calculated to get your blood boiling. PBS supplies us with meaningful and thoughtful analysis. There is only one other public affairs channel that compares and that is CSPAN. So stop asking and start supporting!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:58 PM	s schmidgall : Looks to me like the NYT had a bad week. First they go after PBS for outdated broadcasting, then they attack McCain for an 8 year old rumor. We still have the right to open debate, and I'm glad the NYT,and myself can debate. To eliminate,or to change PBS, would change the nature of our information sources. I hope the USA will forgive the NYT, and still buy their papers, if it will use more PBS style reporting.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:57 PM	arthur Lennig : Marvelous show. I tape it every night. You and Hardball and Jon Stewart provide sanity and insight

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:57 PM	Carolyn Breakfield : I was shocked that the question of PBS's relevance even came up! PBS is the only network I trust to bring me the unbiased truth of what is going on in our country and throughout the world. The ownership of PBS is clear, and we do not have to remember to "follow the money"to determine who to trust.In other words, there is no corporate giant involved with PBS. Not so with other networks. It is really scary to consider who is controlling the news these days whether in newsprint, radio,or tv. Maybe many Americans prefer to receive their news in short sound bites. Not me! I want the detailed analysis that PBS provides. I like that the conversation is civil where guests and hosts are not screaming and talking all over one another. The lack of civility on/in most of our media contains so much hatred and meaness that there is very little true discussion of the issues, other than a very surface attempt to provide news. Unless people hear the truth of where we are and the causes, there can be no true understanding of what is at stake as we consider various decisions about our country's future.I feel that we are at a crossroads in our country and that the unbiased truth is what is needed for us to rise to the aid of our country and our world. In addition, where else but "Frontline" can you get the truth out of the mouths of those who know because they were there? There is no other broadcast like it anywhere on tv.Bill Moyers' program,Now,Tavis Smiley,and all the news programs on Friday evenings are excellent. Nova keeps my mind clear on what reliable science says about various subjects. It was from PBS that I first learned the truth of global warming, as other news outlets were very slow to decide if that report was good science. PBS and NPR were both reporting the soundest science on the subject. I could go on all night about my love of PBS and its programming. Masterpiece Theatre is another favorite of mine. The best novels in the world have been enacted there. I am especially enjoying the Complete Jane Austen series.I also love all the mystery programming. I watch PBS more than any other network for the following reasons. PBS keeps me current with the news and its analysis; PBS provides me the best entertainment anywhere on tv; PBS teaches me history,science,geography,and brings me the Ken Burns specials. It teaches me how I can be a more responsible citizen of the world and especially of the USA. I am sure I have left out something, but I hope my comments have assured you how much I think of PBS and how relevant I think it is to me and to our society. The attacks on PBS that have been waged by the extreme "right" have sickened me and frightened me that we could be living under such a controlling government/ leadership now. I hope that enough people will wake up and realize what is going on re: the loss of civil liberties and the many invasions of our privacy. I am extremely concerned that our president ignores environmental laws and has to be instructed by courts on how to proceed. PBS, thank you for being a witness to truth and a beacon of light in this world. Thank you for being there, for providing excellent programming in every time slot, for being a national treasure! God bless PBS and your efforts for good.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:57 PM	Lynne Hendrix : Still relevant? Have you gone 'round the bend? The last seven years since 9/11 have made PBS more relevant than ever before. To find in-depth, balanced information about issues which affect our country and the world, this is the ONLY place one need look (after having tried).

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:54 PM	Katie : Wait! I just discovered what you have to offer! You can't go away now! I'm 37 years old, and other than occasionally stumbling onto Antiques Roadshow, I hadn't watched PBS since Sesame Street. However, I was unhappy with the current format of the cable news shows so I recently decided to start Tivo'ing the News Hour to see what it was like. It's the only news I watch now. I actually get an education and context, I don't just get snipets in a vacuum. I love it. I also like how you don't let your guests talk over each other and/or start yelling at each other. In addition, with the writers' strike, I started watching Masterpiece Theater. Now, forget Desperate Housewives - give me more Jane Austen! However, PBS probably could work on its image a little to prevent similar criticsm. The fact that I went from age 3 to age 37 before I became a regular viewer again seems to indicate there is a demographic you might not be trying hard enough to reach. Thank you for what you are doing. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:54 PM	C. Evanston : In his NY Times piece, Charles McGrath claims that the rise of cable television has lead to programming that, "offer(s) the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV", but in my mind, what the News Hour has to offer is still unique in the news reporting landscape. By not succumbing to the demands of advertising and ratings races, the News Hour is able to bring its viewers pieces that offer more than a cursory look at the stories which are brought to air every night. The commitment to in-depth analysis and point-counterpoint exposition will always keep The News Hour absolutely necessary to me.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:53 PM	Evelyn Singleton : I love PBS!! The NewsHour, Bill Moyers Journal, Charlie Rose, NOW on PBS, Washington Week, Frontline, Mystery, and Specials like Ken Burns WWII, African American Lives, Eyes on the Prize, etc, etc. These are all thought provoking programs that give not just "sound bites", but good information and discussions on topics and issues. They leave me feeling informed. Yes, Public Television is necessary, don't mess with it!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:46 PM	Larry Mengel Elizabethtown KY : NYT asked the wrong question. Is commercial radio necessary? Do we really need commody in which someone punches a button to tell us to laugh when the material is so bad that nobody would laugh otherwise? Do we really need to know the initmate details of the sick lives of spoiled actresses and actors? Do we really need soap operas that travel from one bedroom to another while our kids are watching? Without PBS and NPR there would be nothing worth watching. When was the last time that commercial TV produced anything as good as NOVA, the History Detectives, or the Antiques Roadshow?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:44 PM	Al : I have watached for 35+ years and will continue. I was particularly disturbed by what the fear of Gingrich and the 'contract with America' did to News Hour programming -- it has never adequately recovered from that blow. Jim Lehrer has served well but it is time for him to return to writing novels.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:44 PM	Richard : PBS gives us fine reporting on The Newshour, Frontline, Expose and really only station that pays attention to classial music. I mean Great Performances and the Metropolitan Opera. Amerian Experience regularly provides in-depth accounts of th lives of Americans. I frankly find cable news of limited value: endless talk by commentators who repeat themselves frequently. They ignore musical performance of most kinds; only the premium cable channels venture into drama of various kinds, and they, of course, are often variations of police dramas found on the commercial networks. PBS is essential to my life and that of my wife's.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:42 PM	Barb : I think that The newshour with Jim Lehrer is the best newshour on TV. I think it is very relevant and hope it will continue for many more years.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:35 PM	David Bacon : PBS is a relevant essential. Specifically, The News Hour is a necessity if one wants to truly know what is going on in the world without hype, emotion, verbal fisticuffs, etc. As a whole, PBS is entertaining, educational, a National Treasure. The idea of irrevelance is unconscienable, borderin on the insane.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:31 PM	Donna Donohue : My husband and I depend on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour nightly for a balanced report of the important news of the day. We also depend on Frontline, Bill Moyers show, American Experience, NOVA, and the nature or science shows. We never watch news shows on either the network or cable stations as we find them incomplete and very biased in their reporting. Were it not for PBS and C-Span we would literally only watch about 10% or less of what is left over on the TV or seriously think of discontinuing paying for cable. My god, what a silly question for the NY times to suggest such a question about needing PBS. They should be ashamed of themselves! As a closing note - we also depend on NPR for all the news during the day plus other informative shows.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:28 PM	Gorgiana Alonzo : My comment focuses on the presentation of news. It would be difficult to imagine a weekday without the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer or Morning Edition. It is irrelevant to me that one is on TV and one on the radio, a difference the New York Times article implied was important. I depend on both for clearly presented and fair reporting. I gave up on local newscast years ago: too much coverage on "entertainment" and forced banter. Word-of-mouth in my community is more dependable. I haven't watched network news in years, although I respect several of the anchors and reporters. Just too many commercials and insufficient story length. The only network news program I am devoted to is CBS' Sunday Morning. Between all such sources, I feel relatively well-informed. I have delighted with the expansion of PBS and other news sources into the Internet, but I do not sit down at my computer to watch the news. And in a political year such as this, I truly appreciate the coverage from Jim, Gwen, Kuame, Ray, Paul, and the others as well as regular contributions from David and Mark, and the rest.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:28 PM	Paul Throckmorton : The "NewsHour" and "Charlie Rose" are absolutely fantastic shows for people who wish to draw their own conclusions. In terms of informing yourself about truly important national and international events, the nightly news programs from NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, provide so little information that they are essentially garbage. If I had to restrict my television watching to 2 shows from any media sources, only the "NewsHour" and "Charlie Rose" would remain.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:28 PM	Former Local TV News Guy : I devoted more than a decade of my life to journalism working on the news teams of two local ABC and NBC affiliates in the 80s and 90s. My observation then and now is that journalism on PBS is usually genuine journalism. In contrast, the commercial and cable news organizations usually produce an inferior product that does not qualify as true journalism. This so-called "news" programming from commercial stations and networks only seems to get worse with time. After my first two years in local TV, I came to the realization that I had made a tragic career mistake. I stuck it out for another nine years before finally calling it quits. I regret that I didn't have an opportunity to put my degree and training to better use. I also regret that I didn't have the opportunity to work with giants such as those who produce PBS FRONTLINE. Finally, I regret that I didn't have the opportunity to work with thoughtful commentators such as Bill Moyers. It would have been wonderful to have been involved in the production of quality PBS programming. Instead I wasted more than a decade of my life following the advice of hack TV news consultants and commercial TV management teams that were as arrogant as they were incompetent. They taught me how to do news the wrong way. Consequently, the tapes I have of my years in local TV news are pretty disappointing when I dig them out and watch them. They remind me of all of the stories that were internally censored to protect business interests. They remind me of all of the shortcuts I was forced to take and all of the needless compromises made by managers who were so bent on protecting their own jobs they had stopped caring about the pursuit of truth and balanced perspective. I would be disappointed if we were to lose PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:26 PM	anon : Re: "mustiness," maybe the NYT shouldn't be throwing stones, given their own glass house. Hundreds of layoffs in the Times' editorial department are coming soon...even though they're supported by advertising.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:22 PM	g b : i love pbs i can"t afford cable this is where i for the most part get adult tv over the years i think you have dumbed yourself down for wider appeal do not worry about any one program appealing to everyone you do great stuff!!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:19 PM	Mark : Expenditures can yield value or be a waste. In the case of PBS the expenditures by the US government can be considered a valued investment in education, public knowledge and entertainment. PBS is such an important part of my and my family’s lives that we have been contributors for years. I travel extensively in my work and have access to expanded cable coverage where ever I work. I seek out and watch PBS first over any of the other cable offerings. In our home we do not subscribe to either cable or satellite and instead focus on PBS broadcast offerings. McNeil/Lehrer Newshour, American Experience, Frontline, Now, Washington Week, and Bill Moyer’s Journal are highly valued offerings due to the insights, balanced discussions and time to explore a topic. No other broadcast offering meets these standards. The only thing I would agree about in the NYT piece is potentially the mustiness factor of the recycled British comedies. Otherwise, the programming is spot-on. Continued public funding of PBS is highly valued.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:19 PM	Patrick Kasson : Without PBS, television would become a total waste land. The newshour, Washington week, Now and a host of other great programs are the programs that make a difference in lives. Keep up the good work

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:18 PM	David : My wife and I watch the Lehrer Newshour every weeknight and it plus Washington Week are the only TV news shows we watch. There is nothing close to it on the networks or cable. Margaret Warner, in particular, is superb. We also love Masterpiece and some of the special programs on PBS. My only real complaint is that your science coverage, while no worse than the networks, is poor. Get real scientists in several areas with communication skills rather than a reporter such as Mr. Kaye and put more science in your news reporting.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:18 PM	Sean : If anything, PBS is even MORE necessary now, than ever before. With all the hype and shouting on cable news outlets, PBS has the luxury of being able to have extended coverage and annalysis of an important issue, without disturbing the viewer with a break to sell something. It is, by design, a different business model than commercial television, and is a vital alternative. The NYT piece fails to discuss the importance of prgramming produced by PBS affiliates in their respective communities. I am offended by your statement regarding some of Jim Lehrer's initial viewers now being in assisted living. The author of the piece might someday be in that position. It's not funny. Hooray for PBS !

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:18 PM	Bob Smith : Has PBS outlived its usefulness? Well in a word no. I have some disagreement with the concept of “make your blood boil TV” but I still respect the effort that is put forth in its creation. PBS still suffers from the “we need to package a quick short idea so the viewer won’t switch the channel” but clearly not the level of commercial TV. The news on PBS is a standard to which other news outlets should strive for. The informational and documentary programming on PBS is also a standard that others should consider a guide. Now who originally aired “Eyes on the Prize”? In fact to pose the question is PBS still relevant is to say all the American public needs is a 20 sec sound bite or an infomercial.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:18 PM	Jacquelyn : I depend on PBS News to keep me informed on WORLD Issues. Local news only report on community issues, the world is still revolving and changing and it does affect my every day life and the decisions I make. I need well researched news reports to gauge the temperture of our economy. I watch PBS because I don't have to worry about what I will see or hear that offends the standards I was raised with, entertainment is not the same from movies to comedy the character and talent of the new wave entertainers can't compare. PBS KEEPS IT REAL AND KEEPS IT CLEAN!!! Thanks so much

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:16 PM	Joyce Newman : I cannot imagine how PBS can be regarded as unnecessary; it is virtually all I watch. Every week night I watch the Jim Lehrer News Hour because it is informative and sensible, not silly and bombastic like other so-called new shows. I certainly wish it had more funding and more support, and I applaud its excellence.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:16 PM	Winston : If you want balance reporting watch the News Hour on PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:15 PM	jack hartley : I'm in my 85th year and my life is centered on pbs. I love frontline and nova, and never miss the newshour. My only regret is that pbs must depend more and more on corporate support. Don't like the commercials! Pat Weaver would be troubled. But, pbs is still the best there is!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:15 PM	RV (Regular viewer) : I rely on the Newshour for balanced, thoughtful examination of important events around the world. Washington Week helps me sort out what's happening in DC. Masterpiece Theatre is consistently entertaining, as are many other PBS offerings. But I recall one of my friends crediting Morgan Freeman, et. al. for giving her little girl the basics she needed to master reading on The Electric Company. Her daughter is now an RN. So much evidence for the viability of public television - personally not sure what I'd do without it!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:14 PM	Ashlee Nelson : In my opinion The Times does not represent America. Americans that watch the programs on PBS are more informed on current events, they watch to find out the truth about what is going on with our country and the world. We simply care about the quality of information we recieve by our media. PBS has always taught valuable lessons to their viewers the viewers like me. The struggling American approve and need PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:14 PM	Tom : As a resident physician my time is both valuable and limited. I make an effort every weekday to catch the News Hour, especially on Fridays. There is no other television news source I trust to bring me in-depth reporting on pertinent topics. It serves as a leading example and alternative to the 5 second sound bite/sensationlalist TV news that dominates today.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:13 PM	MG : I avoid network television. I will not buy cable. I listen to a lot of NPR. In my opinion, many of the shows on PBS contribute the best journalism on television - Jim Lehrer and the News Hour for straight information and perceptive commentary, BBC World News, Frontline ("We answer to no one."), Independent Lens, POV, NOW, Foreign Exchange, and one of my favorites, Bill Moyers Journal, where sometimes the entire hour is spent discussing one idea. We love our British mystery / thrillers as well. If Montana didn't have PBS available, it would be a cold empty place, and I'd have to move.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:12 PM	Pat Miller : PBS news is one of the few news programs that daily explores important national and international events in detail. Discussion is thoughtful, intelligent and without bias. It is the one news program that I watch daily; there is no other news hour or half hour that can possibly replace it. The only thing missing is daily coverage of Brittny Spears and her like, for which I am endlessly grateful. Pat Miller

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:11 PM	michael c 55 Utah : Yes! 7 of the 17 shows on my DVR schedule are PBS and 0 of 17 are for The New York Times.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:09 PM	bigjohnf : Is PBS necessary? For me it is, because, if there were no PBS I would probably not watch television nor listen to the radio. 99.9% of my TV viewing is PBS-the News Hour, Great Performances, Masterpiece Theater and many other great programs too numnerous to list. NPR has great talk and opinion programs, ie, Dianne Rehm, Terry Gross, and many more. And there is classical music and jazz on NPR. Commercial TV is mostly commercials interspersed with garbage and drivel. Cable TV, while having a few good programs has too many commercials, which I cannot tolerate. Commercial radio is a total loss, and has no value for me. I don't know what I would do without PBS. It has provided, and does provide, great pleasure in my life. PBS is a gem!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:09 PM	Jean Neyrinck : The writer of the article has a right to his opinion, and he may be correct to suggest that PBS could be improved. Name one channel that doesn't need to be improved! He has no right to lobby for shutting down PBS, taking it away from those of us who choose to watch its programming. Many of us who choose to watch PBS also choose to make a monetary contribution to help keep it on the air. The huge response from us "fans" speaks loudly. Would a similar threat against any commercial channel get such a reaction?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:09 PM	Margaret, PA : I have TV mainly for PBS and have watched it many years. Over the last ten years I've become tired of the often sanctimonious tone of the narrator on the nature and some of the current events shows, and tired of the endless costume dramas on Masterpiece. I'd like something more edgy and challenging in drama and in the different news programs. Take a hint from NPR. All kinds of interesting programs there - and you can take your radio with you!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:07 PM	N. R. Murray : I get only three television stations over the air waves. Two are PBS stations and one is NBC. I watch PBS far more than I should, especially the nature programs, Frontline, NOVA, Independent lens and the occasional wonderful British detective series. I find PBS to be far better than NPR in the higher quality of programming, especially independent and controversial programs that reveal the truth behind the mainstream media propaganda, such as Bill Moyers Journal and NOW. NPR too often echos the MSM propaganda and government line. Every daily broadcast, without exception, starts with "Today President Bush.....", just as other authoritarian governments highlight their dictators, so does ours. As to the New Year Times questioning whether PBS is relevant, the same could be asked about the paper of the ruling elite. I can read it, although I'd never pay for it, online and actually extract some truth by reading between the lines. But the political and world events reporting is heavily biased toward the authoritarian government that is being created here and now. PBS is far, far better.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:07 PM	Craig : An evening without The News Hour leaves a void. It is my most highly valued news program. BBC World is my favorite way to start the day. Bill Moyers is a national treasure - thank you thank you thank you. Now and Washington Week is great also. I support PBS financially and will continue to do so as it is critical to our national discourse.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:07 PM	djwalton : how dare they? I guess they want to stop any truth from ever being told to the people

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:06 PM	Margo : PBS is the only American network to provide detailed, thoughtful coverage of national issues, as well as significant international news coverage. PBS' only competition is from satellite TV, where I see news broadcasts from BBC, Deutsche Welle, and China Central, all of which are vastly superior to what passes for news on any cable news service, although CNN does some things well. (You have to leave the country to see the best of CNN-- CNN International.) I especially appreciate hearing varying views in which speakers do not interrupt each other and news coverage which, unlike cable "news," does not stoop to the "worst people in the world," celebrity trivia, and constant opining of show hosts. Although I wish PBS would provide more variety in comedy, returns of some of the best of past Masterpiece and Mystery offerings, less Austin City Limits, and no ballroom dancing whatever, I'm still happy to get what is available and encourage PBS to stick to the high standards of the past. The New York Times should tend to the beam in its own eye.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:06 PM	Alexander : I don't care much for PBS in general but I love the NewsHour whose journalistic excellence, investigative depth and world-class guest selection are unparalleled in the business. If PBS had more shows like the NewsHour in its programming, there would never have been any challenges from the Gingrichs, the Tomlinsons or the McGraths. What distinguishes the NewsHour and PBS' other news-oriented/current-event-related programming, including NOW and Frontline, is NewsHour's steadfast adherence to "fair-time" principle by which both the conservative and liberal sides get their say on the same issue. A telling example is the fact that Paul Gigot was welcomed and respected on the NewsHour for many years as the conservative commentator opposite to Mark Shield. But after having left the NewsHour, Gigot has become an unwelcome pariah in PBS, whose Wall Street Journal' editorial perspective was unceremoniously yanked from the air. McGrath's argument about NPR and NewsHour ratings is rather risible to me because the more opinioned and less thoughtful a program is, the more popular it tends to become. Fox's O'Reilly is the highest rated prime-time cable show, but it's mostly garbage. Similarly, NPR's morning and evening programs are far less balanced than the NewsHour, which perhaps explains its relative higher rating. So it's how pedantic and opinionated you are that often determines the rating, not necessarily the journalistic quality that is magnificently manifested by Jim Lehrer and his colleagues on a daily basis.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:05 PM	george : PBS is the only in depth news organization left. Frontline, Nova, Now, Bill Moyers,and The News Hour all provide reasoned and well researched articles. The regular networks ABC, NBC and CBS nightly news are all NEWS lite. You call surf from one or the other and not miss a beat. They almost follow the same order and same stories without depth. When was the last important White paper. It's all the same corperate pablum. The Networks have given away their hard news reports and reporters

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:04 PM	Susan Simons : PBS is the only channel I watch. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is intelligent, articulate, well-researched and fair. I relay on it for accurate national and global information. And I can watch it without annoying commercials about medications for heart, bowel, or mental health, In fact there are only a few annoying commercials at the beginning and end of the program. Other specials and regular shows are far more imaginative and presented with far more integrity than shows on any other channel. Bravo for television which appeals to the best in the human psyche rather than titillating our strange, unwelcome appetite for violence and for maudlin, sentimental emotions.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:04 PM	sgs : I daily look forward to BBC, Lehrer, and Charlie Rose. I don't want to imagine the difficulty in getting independent perspectives without it. I only wish Charlie Rose were available on the web. For when I miss it at broadcast time.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:02 PM	nur nossuli(Potomac, Md) : PBS evening news is the only news program that deserves this name .My husband and I have been watching this program for years and when our sons were teenagers,they always protested that it cut into their favorite programs...But now, they too are addicted to it.It would be a terrible loss if it were to go disappear...Thank you to the whole team !

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:01 PM	Kathleen Haspel : I concur with previous comments that attest to the value of the Newshour, Frontline, and Bill Moyers' Journal as unparalleled sources of news that are vital to the sustenance of an informed citizenry, and by extension, democracy. But PBS not only keeps us informed; with programs like American Experience, American Masters, African American Lives, and Eyes on the Prize, it teaches us about the past and helps us understand who we are now. I think Julian Bond proved this point in his appearance on the Newshour last night, when he noted that a whole generation of his students has grown up deprived of the living history provided by Eyes on the Prize, where leaders like Stokely Carmichael and Dr. Martin Luther King can be seen and heard, not just read about in books. As an educator, I have used Eyes on the Prize and other PBS programs (and supplementary web materials) many times to engage my students in experiential learning that is not available to them elsewhere in the media. To deprive them and future generations of students of PBS would not only limit their education and understanding, but stunt their development into informed citizens.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:01 PM	Michael : I am Canadian, and I consider PBS, as well as the NewsHour, to be one of my most cherished public institutions. American's - be proud of PBS and honor it. It's a broadcaster dedicated to all the virtues that are ever harder to come by in the media mix of today.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:00 PM	andrew : NewsHour is an excellent program and I am glad for it. But let's be honest, two other PBS "news programs" - NOW, and Bill Moyers - are terribly and embarrassingly biased garbage. Please do not continue to besmirch the News Hour's reputation by association with these other poor quality programs -remember, not all of your viewers/supporters are liberal democrats! Thank you for considering my comment, Sincerely, Andrew Klotz

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:59 PM	John W. Bengston : Kay, my wife, and I depend on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer for our news. Oh, yes, we watch local and national network news, but we feel that is mostly headlines (local crimes and brief coverage). The News Hour gives us considered conversation from varying perspectives, balanced descriptions, and respectful dialogue (for the most part - sometimes politicians are hard to control). We are most grateful that The News Hour does not present "sound bites and cliches" as it delivers the news. The program is essential to our understanding of the world in which we live, and we look forward to The News Hour every Monday through Friday. John W. Bengston

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:59 PM	John Kloc : In a time of cable and satellite TV when you can get 100 or more channels its strange how often I still find myself watching Public TV. I'm 57 and grew up with news broadcasters like Chet Huntley, David Brinkly, Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevaride. What passes for network news these days differs little from Entertainment Tonight. These days serious news comes from two sources, PBS and NPR. Odd that the same week the Times questioned PBS they ran a baseless story on the Republican Presidential candidate they themselves endorsed just several weeks ago. The Times takes itself way too seriously for a paper that’s almost fallen to the same level as the National Enquirer, but then what would you expect from a paper that doesn’t even have a comic’s page. Talk about “mustiness”.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:56 PM	Dr. & Mrs James W Davison : We watch more programs on Public television than on any other station, cable included. We never miss Jim Leher's newscast as it is the most indepth, complete coverage of the news on TV, I can't praise him & his staff enough. He & staff are courteous & non-partisan, always asking intelligent, pertinent questions of their guests & allowing them to answer. I detest most other news shows formats (a.e. Chris Matthews and their crazy antics & overtalking everyone) I know of a lot of intelligent people who agree with me.Keep doing more of the same, PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:55 PM	nancy gilbert : I would rarely watch TV were it not for my public station. Where else can one the likes of: the News Hour, Bill Moyer, Frontline, Now, Washington Week, Masterpiece Theatre, Mystery,programs on science and the world, and all of the wonderful British programs. All of the questioning regarding the necessity of public broadcasting seems to come up when there is a republican administration in power. In spite of the fact that research has shown the public networks to be fair and unbiased, there continues to be an almost paranoid thinking on the part of some members of congress and their supporters. Here we are at a time when the TV and radio are more and more under the control of corporations and powerful individuals. The public, more than ever before, needs to be represented and presented with unbiased truthful information. I believe our world is nearing an environmental precipice and I for one, want to be able to keep abreast of what is really happening. I could never do this through the corporate news sector and I do not have the time or energy to spend my days (and nights) searching the web trying to figure out where truthful and unbiased information can be found.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:54 PM	Bill : PBS IS Journalistic Integrity, just as it IS Civics, Culture, Heritage, Spirit, Knowledge, Soul, one might even throw in Truth. The article by CHARLES McGRATH in the NY Times was none of these things, and the profuse showing of support for PBS, here and in other forums, is both a testament to PBS's imminence, and to how impoverished and intellectually puerile McGarth’s article was. Thank you PBS and the NewsHour! You are a bright light in a dim landscape of journalism and culture!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:50 PM	Giarc Sretlaw : Yes, we all love NPR, but what has that to do with PBS? As our society dumbs down America, the News Hour on PBS remains one of a few bright beacons in an otherwise “sound bytten” and “photo opted” television media circus. Technological change is taking an inevitable toll on the print media and smart organizations deal with change in a positive manner. The New York Times, once a pillar of respectability and responsibility, now sounds more like a losing politician taking cheap, unwarranted shots at an opponent. By the way, is the Times pimping for a cable company?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:49 PM	Dillydarlin : Where else but The News Hour can a person get accurate news of the world? Of course PBS is relevant; certainly The News Hour is extremely relevant. I cannot imagine anyone suggesting anything to the contrary.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:49 PM	Patricia : I watch the Newshour each night. I like the in-depth coverage of current news. I appreciate that Jim Lehrer is serious and intelligent, nor flashy and shallow like most reporters on other networks. Gwen Iffel and Ray Swarez are great reporters the likes of which are not seen on cable or the networks. The interviews on the Newshour are given enough time for answers to be given that are more than a sound-bite. I would love to see the Masterpiece Theater of old and other good original theater performances. Bill Moyers is a treasurer who is a tremendous interviewer and a defender of the best that is America. We need Public Television. The government should be putting more money in PBS rather than taking money away.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:47 PM	Eugene A. Norbom : I am not an avid watcher of The News Hour. However, while serving in Iraq in 2004, it was periodically broadcast over the Armed Service network. We received a TV from the morale fund. As I would spend time in our flight operations shack, and hear the sound bite regularly, and listen to key world events from Mr. Lehrer, I would grow to appreciate his presentation. Now, in the comfort of my home, hearing the same sound bite, I quickly relect back to those times, and think how lucky I was. I particularly appreciate the moment of silence, that comes with the posting of the names of those service members lost in the previous few days. What other, national news source, takes the time to honor them, as simple as that is. Step back and take an honest look. Are you part of the solution, or part of the problem? On the same day that The New Hour addressed a Feb news article and forum concerning the need for PBS, the same newspaper is being questioned about it's slimy attack on Sen. John McCain. I see who is part of the problem. To PBS and Mr. Lehrer, keep up the good work. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:46 PM	Tony : I am not sure if there is enough paper or words to express the need for PBS. How necessary is PBS to me, "let me count the ways". The Newshour and Charlie Rose provides me a daily in depth discussion of the good, bad and ugly events in our world. The weekly Washington Week and McLaughlin Group sums up the politicial thoughts of the "experts" which provides me with both sides of current politicial events. It's important to hear both sides because there is too much at stake to be tunnel visioned. Masterpiece Theater and American Experience are a must ,each for a different reason. Masterpiece Theater for pure storytelling and enjoyment, American Expereience for teaching me more about the events that have helped shape this nation. For those who enjoy mindless entertainment PBS may seem stale, old and outdated for those who want to feel stimulated PBS is a must.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:45 PM	Theo Solomos : The commercial news media contain more ads than news. You need to exercise a great deal of patience during the commercials, and even when the news does come, the quality is very low and lacking in depth. That's why I've been a supporter of PBS for almost 4 decades.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:41 PM	valerie brown : I remember when Jim Lehrer was moderating the debate between I think Kerry and Bush, and my then 13 year old daughter asked " cant we vote for Jim Lehrer?" I agree completely.I can not imagine a world without the insight and scope of news and events that pbs news has to offer. All the rest(news casts) just serve as brain drain. I think people who cant watch it are truely lost. thanks valerie

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:41 PM	M. Daniel : Any thinking person could not do without PBS---The News Hour,Mystery, and Masterpiece are absolute necessities in my viewing life. A pox on the New York Times.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:40 PM	Gay Pasley : I appologize for being so late in getting this email of support to you. I can't imagine where one would go to get as thorough and accurate a source on world news if PBS and McNeil Lehrer in particular were not available. As exciting as this presidential campaign has been, my husband and I could not follow it with as much commitment and enthusiasm, if we did not have Shields and Brooks (and Jon Stewart)as well as other contributors available to interpret the many shifts that have occured over the course of the campaign. This is not meant to exclude the value of many other fine programs that PBS supports. I only wish we could support you more.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:39 PM	R.C.Braun : The only source of news that is objective and detailed, where the particpants are not sreaming at each other is the nightly news hour. It is the only source of ooour news.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:38 PM	Joan and Art : My husband and I find that PBS has great dignity in its broadcasting and presentation of programs. We rely on the Lehrer Program for its excellent news and interview coverage. We find David Brancaccio's NOW, Billy Moyers' JOURNAL, FRONTLINE and Charlie Rose's Interviews to be wonderful, informative programs. The cultural programs are outstanding. In general, this is the most informative and stimulating station on TV; we find it indispensable in our lives.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:37 PM	Diane Kramer : The only information and news stations worth watching are either PBS or CSPAN. Not only are they more in depth but also thought provoking. Most other news programs have such a high entertainment factor that they are not set up to really cover any important subject. Not only do I support my local PBS station with dollars, I also encourage everyone I know to watch and enjoy all the programing.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:33 PM	Howard R. Bailey : I can think of no television channel or network that is more important than PBS. Its programs of NewsHour, Frontline, Bill Moyers Journal, NOW, NOVA, Masterpiece Theater, etc. are the best available on television. The only channels I would watch in addition would be the History Channel, Discovery and probably Classic Movies, but I don't get those on my plan. The presentations on PBS are superior to anything else offered. It news does not depend upon "news bites" but instead offers prolonged comments and whole stories. Would that the NYT and other print media were as informative. PBS and NPR are my major sources of news and information other than the large number of books that I read and some of the on-line news sources. I cannot imagine a time when BPS would be unnecessary. Thanks . . . Howard

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:33 PM	William Halmeck : PBS...they're not the best at what they do...they're the only ones who do it

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:32 PM	Carol Swenson : I am flummoxed by the question. But, I gather it was a serious question by the NYTimes. How can I begin to express the importance of PBS to me as an individual and as a citizen. I believe that the press is the fourth branch of government. It informs us, the citizens, which allow this country to be a true democracy. I am informed, in depth for a lay person, about political, environmental, judicial, scientific, economic, international and domestic issues -- because of PBS and its commitment to the true job of the press. I am endlessly grateful. I cannot imagine how much harder I would have to search for such information if PBS were not available. And I fear how ill-informed and uneducated we, as a public, would be without it. If I had to choose between PBS and the NYTimes, it would be a no-brainer, PBS anytime. Fortunately, there is no need to choose. If I failed to say so earlier, I am tremendously grateful for all PBS gives to me every week. You bring the world to me--places I could never go, wildlife I would never see, ideas I would never have connected to, people doing wonderful things. Thank you ever so much.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:32 PM	Scott : I just saw the story on PBS New Hour. What a great article because it fired up all the people sitting back enjoying the maturity and great reporting that PBS offers every night. This is the first comment I have ever actually sent in compared to all the times I said I was going to. In college I could not afford cable and started watching the new hour between class, I found it to be a great forum with excellent conversations and debates. Now I can afford cable and chose not to pay. It is the best free service, all of our networks, left in our country. In addition, most NOVA shows are first class! They helped me procrastinate many late nights while cramming for a test. While I was deployed to Fort Irwin National Training Center for two years I met every producer out there looking for a story. The PBS team was the most fun to hang out with in the Kamel dog café, laid back and having fun. Thanks for the great service and choice you provide.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:32 PM	jbirsh : I've been thinking about the article all week. I can't imagine what life would be like without all the thought provoking, interesting, original, and entertaining programs I watch regularly on Public Television. It's irresponsible to try to condemn it tot he dust bin when there is really nothing as good, despite what was opined. Thank you PBS and all your loyal supporters.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:30 PM	Bonnie M. : Is PBS still necessary?... My answer is YES (all caps, bolded, very large font and underlined). As a member of the "Captin Kangaroo" generation, I have found PBS to be the ONLY real brain-engaging network out there on the television airwaves. Thank you, PBS, for everything you are and do.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:29 PM	Arden Bucholz : To the contrary, PBS is more necessary than it was originally. PBS ia one of the few media in our country which speaks to all Americans with balanced,thoughtful and often unique content and does so in a format which is often excellent and outstanding. Our children grew up with Mr. Rogers and Seseme Street,my wife and I were nourished with the Newshour,Washington Week, Masterpiece Theater and lots else. PBS has raised the level, quality and quantity of civic culture in our country. It is a major national treasure. My hat is off to PBS: it is not a luxury, it is a necessity. Arden Bucholz

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:28 PM	Henry Harsch : I am not going to be as nice as the others that have submitted comments here. That NY Times article is just plain dumb. Although the guy that wrote it sprinkles a few statistics here & there, where he goes with his opinions is just pathetically laughable. He is the one that is irrelevant, not PBS or Jim Lehrer. I was going to cite a long list of reasons why PBS is important for the general public, but that has already been eloquently done by all of the above people. For about 16 years I have been getting my news from Jim Lehrer & NPR. I'm sticking with reliability & quality. Thanks for providing the opportunity to express our viewpoints.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:28 PM	M. J. Jones : I live in Canada and don't know what I would do without PBS's literate, intelligent programs. Thank you so much for it. (I support the nearest PBS station in Watertown, N.Y.) I so enjoy many of the programs: Nova, Nature, American Experience, Frontline, the Newshour (which is wonderful not only for its in-depth, thoughtful coverage, but also because it doesn't condescend or yell. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:28 PM	Sonja : We need PBS, particularly Jim Lehrer and his Newshour's excellent reporters, as well as Frontline, Now, Bill Moyers' Journal, and American Experience, more now than ever. Almost all the rest of the reporting (as opposed to blog) media have, ever since 1980, besmirched democracy and journalism by becoming mere and slovenly mouthpieces for the government. PBS continues to tell the truth no matter what moneyed interests may not like it. They present both sides of topics, an approach so rare as to be almost unique in media today. Their nature, fiction, and other programs are beautifully done, in depth, and free of bias. In PBS, particularly the journalistic programs cited above, rests our only hope of living the democracy that is what America is supposed to be about. Sadly, the New York Times overlooked the fact that the other channels they cited are commercial interests, completely beholden to their advertisers and no one else, and therefore they are slaves to them. If our government supported PBS as it used to, instead of, say, giving billions of dollars to Halliburton so they can waste and steal them, and additional billions for the immoral war in Iraq that was started by a known lie, or giving the opulent oil companies huge tax breaks, they would find a wonderful and redeeming path for that money in giving it to PBS. (The current administration doesn't have the decency or courage to do that!) Hurrah for you, Jim Lehrer, for your wonderful Newshour, and for PBS. And thank you so much!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:26 PM	Ed L. : After viewing your broadcast today (PBS NewsHour), I want to add my voice to the chorus of those speaking on behalf of public programming. I would like to see public TV and radio expanded, and feel we have lost important ground to the proliferation of market media and the expansion of cable networks. I consider such shows as the PBS NewsHour and Charlie Rose as invaluable to our civic culture and national identity, and while they are certainly entertaining and viable as commercial media, I feel the interests of the public are better served by ensuring that such stations remains independent, publicly financed, and free of commercial advertising (as much as is possible). I hope you are able to use our letters to lobby for an expansion of public funding in the years to come.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:25 PM	marge : I would be devastated without PBS. The News Hour is the only news I watch. I would like to see something more interesting between 7 and 8, however(except Friday). Antiques Roadshow and dancing are a bore.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:24 PM	David Joseph : PBS Is one of the best things in my life, Don't know what I would do if away! there are so many programs i like it would take a page to list Dave

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:23 PM	Lois Sharkey : My husband and I are avid fans of the News Hour. I was outraged at the NYT article. No where on television do you get fair and balanced, in-depth reporting except on this program. Between Charlie Rose and the News Hour, I feel that we are given unbiased information that none of the networks are capable of performing any longer. This is sad and also frightening. Perhaps the New York Times and the networks should take lessons from your reporters.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:23 PM	Elaine Wildman : It's rarely that I watch anything other than my PBS station because I look for the good news analysis from Jim Lehrer and on Washington Week as well as the continuing informative NOVA . Though I'm not remodeling my 50 year old house, I enjoy This Old House, and I'm a staunch fan of both Masterpiece and Mystery. I don't know what's available on cable, because like thousands of other Americans, I've chosen not to subscribe to cable service. PBS is still relevant, informative and entertaining.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:22 PM	Lois : If it weren't for PBS, I would probably cancel my cable TV and use my TV for viewing movies only, as my son and his wife already do. Why should we have no choice but to watch the alternative shows that offer more fluff than substance and no indepth interviews. If PBS goes, I go.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:22 PM	Jon Ruddell : PBS and NPR are the only sources of news that provide valid points of view in honest open discussions. The Lehrer Newshour is indispensible. If I don't get home in time to catch the 7:00pm show then I invariably stay up until it shows again at 1:00am. I cannot stand the Info_tainment that most news sources seem to have gravitated to. The variety and trustworthiness of PBS programming is extremely important.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:21 PM	Moker : Well, PBS is certainly more relevant than the New York Times. I can now read dozens of major newspapers on-line. But when I want to relax in the evening and savor a thoughtful, informative, timely and (most importantly) commercial-free program, I can only go to PBS. Or while commuting, cooking, or cleaning, I can listen to in-depth international, The News from Lake Wobegon, or the Newport Jazz festival. The "free market" doesn't have to dictate everything in the media. Thank goodness for the CPB, PBS, NPR, PRI, and APM. They will always have my support.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:21 PM	ASHnatko : My husband and I are late in our resolve to send our supporting votes to PBS, but are grateful for the chance to pitch in. We have kept the News Hour time slot a solemn commitment in our schedule since it was the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour, because it allows extended stretches of time to explore both sides of vital issues. It's an amazing balancing act to be both immediately pertinent and deeply probing. This program has done it well and by itself can serve as adequate argument that PBS is necessary. Beyond that are the many interesting and informative programs it fosters, not the least of which are the documentaries produced (for one, the Civil War) and the wonderful Jane Austin novels (though reading them is even better). Long live PBS !!! P.S. We are paid members of two PBS stations, it's that important to us to support such good programs.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:21 PM	Jacqueline Ancess : PBS is definitely needed. Although I have all of the cable channels, I watch PBS more than any other channel. In particular, the loss of the Newshour would be monumental. It is the ONLY intelligent and responsible nightly news program on TV! What a loss it would be to not have access to great thinkers like Bill Moyers and Skip Gates. I love Masterpiece Theatre, Nature, and This Old House. I could do without Charlie Rose, but that is about it. Having PBS there is a safeguard against ratings=based TV in an increasingly corporatized culture.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:18 PM	delton minder : I am a steady watcher of the news hour and I would miss it if you take it off the air. I wont miss fox news if they took that program off.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:18 PM	Catherine Schneider : PBS is the only television I watch. Once I turned on a commercial station and was appalled by the commercial time versus the program time. Give me the best...PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:17 PM	Florence : Where would I be without PBS/WETA? I wouldn't have the information, insights, and opinions that I depend on to be a good citizen in the US today. I wouldn't hear about scientific discoveries, watch my favorite classic novels brought to life on the small screen. Masterpiece has brought a golden age of TV to us at home with wonderful acting, brilliant writing, and the chance, for me at least, to read and reread all the classics that I zoomed through in my long-ago youth. And what about Great Performances, the operas, the chance to see and hear the best singers, musicians, and the best dancers. I had heard of the Mark Morris Dancers, but never seen them, and now I have, and hope to see them live someday very soon. What about Mystery? The Britcoms? I'm sure I've missed a few favorites in this very brief list, but I'm sure you get the picture. I am very grateful for everything PBS provides. And reading over what I've written, I think I owe you more than I have been giving!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:17 PM	MSL : What a strange thought that is. Currently our local news paper contains very little indepth study of world news. Our television stations and news paper report more on fluff (tv reviews, celebs, movies) than they do national and international news. Public radio and television are my window to the world. Perhaps it's newspaper we don't need.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:17 PM	Lynne : PBS programs are the majority of what I've watched since the Seventies. The NYT suggestion that PBS is not valued or valuable is flat wrong. Nowhere else on the tube can one see news and documentaries, arts and sciences programming, and children's shows that compare with those on PBS. And Mystery and Masterpiece Theatre are the equal of most "entertainment" on cable (for which one has to pay through the nose)or on commercial networks. NYT is even wrong on minor matters : I believe the Championship ballroom coverage on PBS long precedes "Dancing With the Stars." The federal government, and the tv conglomerates give the American taxpayer little enough in exchange for use of the air waves, and the NYT has no cause to ridicule the public's defense of PBS. The nation needs programs like the News Hour to discuss important national and international events, and to give us access to the information other media so often ignore or conceal.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:17 PM	Mary G : It is the height of mean spiritedness for the NY Times to suggest that PBS is anything other than a gift to all of us. It's an entertainment refuge - a place to go to see and hear news and entertainment that does not pander to the least common denominator of public taste. It is one of the last bits of elegance and intelligent viewing left to us. So why the outcry to destroy it? M. Groft, Louisville, KY.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:16 PM	DANA HANSON : PLEASE, WHERE DOES THIS STUFF COME FROM?! IT SEEMS MORE & MORE THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WANT OR WOULD LIKE TO RID US ALL OF THE ARTS AND SUCH. I INCLUDE PBS HERE; BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE ARTS, PBS, ETC REFLECTS THE TRUTH BETTER THAN MOST OTHER SOURCES TODAY!!!!! THANKS! AND I HOPE AND PRAY THAT THE FEW WILL OPEN THEIR MINDS SOMEDAY!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:15 PM	Philip Clift : Phil Clift; I emphatically disagree with the NYT article on the irrelevance of PBS. As a regular viewer of PBS if find the programming is diverse and insightful. It is created by professionals who present accurate and unbiased news, intelligent and insightful commentary and stimulating entertainment. If I could find another station, cable or otherwise, that could approximate programs like the Newshour, Masterpiece Theater and the American Experience I’d watch them. I am disappointed that the NYT would print such drivel.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:15 PM	Rev Jeanne C Parker : As a highly educated person in this society, yet one with limited income in part due to my choice to follow God's calling rather than the almighty dollar, I am incensed by the people whose personal eye sight is so short that they question the value of the only mass media vehicle that I can access for news, commentary, educational programing and entertainment on my analog, rabbit ear sporting TV set (I am grateful that it is a color set!). The people who are making it more difficult for low income people to access anything of value without destroying their already limited fiscal budgets should not only be ashamed of themselves, but socially and legally they should be pressured to do MORE to assist those who do NOT have their apparently excessive resources, especially by requiring those excessively advantaged folk to use their personal time and physical abilities/talents in addition to their already excessive financial resources. Such folks need to get down in the trenches of the disadvantaged in this country and discover that highly educated and motivated people in this present climate are being destroyed by what is happening in to our own people. We can not continue to assist the problems of the world with our own population being economically marginalized and socially destroyed from within.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:15 PM	DC writer : PBS provides some of the most valuable programming on American airwaves. Unlike cable and network news shows, Jim Lehrer's newscast offers objective, detailed reporting that informs his viewers rather than trying to sway them to the viewpoints of corporate masters. Other programs, including Frontline, Nature, American Experience, Masterpiece, and Mystery, provide quality programming for people who cannot or will not pay for cable or satellite TV and abhor the extremely low quality of most network offerings. With the cost of food, fuel, health care, and other essentials constantly rising, many families no longer can afford the extravagance of $80/month or more for cable or satellite. PBS is an exceptional resource and value for the American public. May it continue to inform and entertain us for the foreseeable future.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:15 PM	Ken Innes : What I appreciate about PBS is that it broadcasts programs, like the News Hour and Frontline, that deal with controversial issues in a in-depth and balanced way that most networks won't touch. These programs help educate the public on these issues and allow the public to discuss these issues in a constructive manner.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:14 PM	Leigh and Maurice : We have watched the NewsHour for over 21 years and there are no other programs that provide complete accurate coverage of a news story the way the NewsHour does. News stories are not supposed to be sound bytes, but fully reported, accurate, stories which present all sides, this is what the NewsHour does. Whether it is current events, health, the arts, politics...it all can be found on this program. Also programs like Frontline provide this in depth news reporting that is important in a world where news sometimes is just made up of headlines and short news stories. PBS news programs are an essential part of our lives and we would be lost without them. Long live Public Television!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:13 PM	ronda : I HAVE WATCHED CABLE FOR 20 YRS. I CHOSE TO STREAMLINE MY EXPOSE TO STRESS. I KEEP TO TV ON PBS AND I LISTEN TO NPR ALSO. I HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED TO THINK AND RETHINK MORE IN THE PAST YEAR THAN 20 YRS OF CABLE. I MUST SAY THAT I AM LUCKY TO LIVE IN NASHVILLE AND OUR LOCAL PROGRAMS ARE GREAT.I BELIEVE PBS DOES SERVE US ALL.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:12 PM	JHW : I'm coming late to the discussion, but I couldn't let the opportunity pass to stand up for the NewsHour and other PBS programming like Frontline. When "something" happens (be it 9/11 or what I--a good Democrat---consider a rather sleazy attack on Sen. McCain in the news columns of the NY Times), I don't feel as if I've gotten a full understanding of the event until I hear what Jim Lehrer and the NewsHour commentators have to say. PBS past its time? Nonsense. Not unless lucid, dispassionate, reasoned analysis of the events of our world are also passe.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:11 PM	Woody & Susan : 2/22/08 - Recent years have witnessed the narrowing and deafening of US news media; PBS lights up the dark places in the narrow and deaf news channels on TV and radio...keep rolling!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:11 PM	Sheila Thomon : Whaaaaat? No PBS? And what are we supposed to watch, then...CNN???? Give me a break!!!! I've been living outside the U.S. for several months now and guess what I miss the most about America...Yep, good television as provided by PBS!! I try to watch what I can online. Keep up the good work. BTW, sometimes you're boring and sometimes irritating, but compared to cable channels, you're waaaay ahead.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:10 PM	Radam Schwartz : The Times used the term high-minded programs. Where on Cable TV are these high-minded shows, A&E started as Arts and Education and now it is Arts and Entertainment. We recently let our cable subscription go , its too expensive and often there is nothing inspiring to watch. I truly missed the baseball playoffs and I agonize about missing the NBA but other than that I feel no loss. As a jazz musician, I could never find any jazz progrmming on Cable, and I have not found a show like American Masters or Bill Moyers on Cable. We would truly be lost without PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:10 PM	Dorothy : How important is PBS to me? My husband called "The News Hour" my religion! I spend precious hours with tpt in the Twin Cities every day. It is the place where I can find inteligent, meaningful, and, yes, 'classy' news, entertainment, and enlightenment in everything from "This Old House" to "Masterpiece" (can't wait for episode three of "Pride and Predjudice")to "America's Ballroom Challenge" to our local programming such as "Almanac." I'd better stop. To back up my enthusiasm, I've raised my contribution this year.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:10 PM	Susan Mengers : I do read newspapers, The Record and The New York Times on the weekend, but I could not do without PBS. My husband and I faithfully watch the NewHour, Now, Bill Moyer's Journal, and Religion and Ethics. I also enjoy Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, In the Life (which it was on earlier and more often) Frontline, Great Performances - really it is the only TV station I watch. We've been members for years. Thank you.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:10 PM	kathy : It is the only unbiased non-tabloid news that is out there in the US. I am so cik of how the news agencies are so tabloid and irrelevent

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:10 PM	Adam : I was five when cable first appeared but it was ten years before my mother could afford to provide it to a precocious teenager eager to be socially relevant to his friends. That being the case, there was no Discovery Channel, History Channel, Learning Channel, Cable News, there wasn't even an internet. There was only rabbit ear antennae, a fuzzy picture, major network gobbledygook, and PBS. Not everyone has the money to afford cable, there are a lot more people out there than most think who cannot afford it. And for a child like me, with very little by the way extravagance, public television was not only a treat but an absolute necessity. Where else can those of limited means find access to news, culture, history, art, and music, that is not filtered by commercial interest or agenda. PBS is vital to the mental health of the populace by allowing access to information and knowledge for merely the cost of an old television set.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:09 PM	George Krakowski : The following extracted quote from the New York times article says it all: "Since corporate sponsors were allowed to extend their “credit” announcements to 30 seconds, commercials in all but name have been a regular feature on public television, and that’s not to mention pledge programs, the fund-raising equivalent of water-boarding." So, please PBS, knock off the thinly disguised commercials and incessant pledge drives and I'll glad return to the fold as a dues-paying member 9as I used to be). Appreciate this forum. George Krakowski

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:09 PM	Stewart Johnston : My wife and I are from Scotland and are fortunate to visit Florida for extended holidays in the Fall and in Spring. We are used to the high standards of the BBC and are pleased that at least one station in the USA meets those same standards of accuracy, integrity and variety. Generally it is the channel I watch most when in the USA. It must have been a slow day at the New York times that they felt they had to tackle a soft target like PBS. Long may PBS continue. Even though we only come here on holiday I am pleased to be a contributer to PBS. New York Times - I rarely buy it but that article really puts me off ever buying it in future.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:08 PM	Kevin Gilson : As a 30+ year supporter of public broadcasting, I still find commercial television and radio so shallow as to be a waste of time. The time and effort that PBS and NPR put into developing information helps me better understand what is going on in the world and how it affects me. Five minutes of news and ten minutes of adverts leaves me cold. If they showed the Olympics and competitive skating on PBS I could happily abandon commercial broadcasting.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:08 PM	Ana Lachelier : Asking this question is akin to asking is breathing necessary. Since 9/11 and the Corporate take-overs of the media this question is offensive. Being a news junkie as I am, I cling in desperation to honest news. PBS along with C-Span have been my lifeline. I have recently returned from a visit to Cuba. Yes there is poverty, yes there is control there also but now the longer I live and watch the more I realize that if we give into these small freedoms we have such as PBS and C-Span the narrower these difference become. We are in extremely dangerous times at this moment and we MUST ask ourselves is this the time to give up those small but most important freedoms we have left? Is it really time to give in to Corporate media? PLEASE,PLEASE don't take away the last bastions we have of receiving information that is unblemished and not just sound bites.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:08 PM	Mike NJ : Even when it seems far fetched, it is difficult to have your work questioned as irrelevant. So let me add to the pile of folks who say that in a country where what is passed off as news on the cable and network stations is really either poor entertainment or effective propaganda - PBS is just about the only thing left on TV that is worth while. Thank you all.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:07 PM	Robert Barth : What? Is PBS still relavent? Is anybody watching the "fluff" on commercial Programming? Has anybody noticed that the "so called" in-depth articles on commercial programming in many times are nothing more than a plug for one product or another. Without PBS, you would think that the world around us is just wonderful. Anyone who reads knows otherwise. PBS is the only objective media in the United States. Hang in there PBS. I support you with my dollars. I support you. Thanks to all and regards.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:06 PM	M. Commerse : PBS is more than relevant. It sets the tone for sane television today. It should be made a more active part of education. It has been part of my life since childhood (WTTW 1950s) and I, along with others in my generation would fade sadly into the world of dinosaurs without it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:05 PM	Eleanor : As a college student I doubt I am the typical age demographic watching PBS. However, as a student of politics I find the News Hour to be the most conscientious and intellectual news program on any channel. I remember watching it with my parents when it was MacNeil/Lehrer and I was only a child (then of course I was also a fan of Sesame Street, and Shining Time Station.) Today I still make it a part of my evening whenever possible. Indeed, I was probably inordinately excited when Jim Lehrer came to campus at The College of William and Mary to moderate part of The World Forum on Democracy. Of course also enjoy Washington Week, and on occasion American Experience. As a native of the greater Washington DC area I am used to political bickering, however I do not enjoy hearing my news in such a manner; nor do I enjoy the often esoteric stories given airtime by other stations. To lose News Hour and Public Television would be a disservice to the entire American community!!! Eleanor Shaw, age 21, student, The College of William and Mary

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:04 PM	maccins ingersoll : Believe it or not, some of us do not have and cannot afford cable television. I'm not sure how many we are or how much power we have, but there's no doubt how bereft we'd be without public television. It is the only free channel worth watching, for commercial television is a desert devoted to America's seemingly boundless fascination with murder. By all means, give PBS more money. It does a fantastic job with what little it gets. I can't do without its news and issues coverage.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:04 PM	W. Clay Jones : In an inceasingly sound-byte driven TV news medium, it seems like PBS is one of the few that still offers thought-provoking dialogue that informs. Given the worsening disconnect between Goverment & the Public, PBS is not only educational, but a safety valve for many who might otherwise despair that proportionate reality is largely becoming irrelevant. 20 years from now, PBS coverage (and the reporting of related groups like Frontline) are likely to contrast the journalistic decent of many news agencies as ratings inceasingly trump the fundamental privilege and importance of free speech to protect freedom and improve our union.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:04 PM	Sharon Kahn : I am thankful for the contributions that PBS makes to America in the arenas of culture, politics, economics, history, and on and on. Equally impressive is the always-high level of quality of its presentations. There really is no other network like PBS, and its non-commercial status is a major factor in its ability to deliver the programming it does. I would happily increase my tax contribution to this great institution.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:04 PM	cheryl : I cannot survive without PBS. I watch the nightly news, FRONTLINE, AMERICAN EXPERIENCE,NOW, ACT2 NOVA, NATURE, BILL MOYERS, COOKING SHOWS, GWEN IFIL'S WASHINGTON REPORT, WIRED SCIENCE,business reports, and alot more. I like on the leher nightly news the debates, with usually two opposing factions on a given issue ,along with david brooks/ mark shields of the washing ton post, and the visual pictures, like the serbs burning the american embassy, when appropiate the arts poetry literature , with readings, music, maps,interviews,illustrations, allowing conservative and liberal views, black, latino, and white view, surveys on education, checking on the follow up , what happened to the principle characters in a story, and on and on, i like the relaxed atmosphere with extra time spent to fully explain a story, the history of it, the context and different views, all of which takes alot of time-- i take it on my ipod to the gym, or to go for a walk. THERE REALLY IS NOTHING TO REPLACE IT, ESP. BECAUSE IT IS FREE FOR POOR PEOPLE TO WATCH , NO CABLE FEES, OR SATELLITE RADIO FEES , OR INTERNET FEES ..

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:04 PM	David O : I am a retired professor. The news hour is the only news program, cable or network, that has credibility, is substantive and merits public funding. It is unfortunate that it has been somewhat commercialized by Chevron and others. It undermines its integrity.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:03 PM	Carol W. Dietmeyer : In tonight's News Hour discussion with Mark Shields and David Brooks, Mark referred to the people and State of Wisconsin (referencing last week's primary) as being "out there". We could describe anyone who lives and works on the East Coast as being "out there", but we don't! Please do not use derogatory phrases to describe people from parts of the United States that are not in or near New York or Washington DC. We're called "The United States of America" for good reason!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:02 PM	Shirley H. Martin : the New York Times has gotten too big for its britches. They remind me of the gaming industry when they are trying to get a license where an established industry is. They always indicate the economy can support it. When the shoe is on the other foot, then the economy can't support it.PBS is the only alternative to The New York Times and any other news organization who think that America can't do without them.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:02 PM	Mary Wakeman : PBS and NPR are two of the MOST necessary things in my day. I listen to no radio source that is not NPR in my driving hours. I value no broadcast or cable news source other than the Lehrer report, although I hear them. I read stories in the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and in Bloomberg if it is a rapidly changing story. I consider these sources reliable. NPR and PBS are as necessary to me as bread and peanut butter. And by the way, the New York Times is not.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:02 PM	James K. Strange : PBS is more relevant than ever. We need serious journalism that presents all sides of the issuses in a calm and probing manner. No one is providing the quality and depth of PBS. IF the majority of television viewers don't appreciate the value of PBS then God bless the minority.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:02 PM	Terrence Guay : PBS is absolutely necessary! It has the best television programming for children in the 6-10 age range. The Newshour is the only news program that does not reduce current events to soundbites, and provides thoughtful, in-depth analysis. As a college professor, it is a rare day in the classroom that I do not stream in video on a news segment by Paul Solmon or another Newshour correspondent for class discussion. Other than an occasional program on nature and the environment, cable simply does not provide the quality programming that the NY Times article suggests.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:01 PM	Rev.E.L.Smallwood : PBS, NewsHour is the best news reporting program on TV. No doubt! The reporting is comprehensive, well balanced and informative. I think that more news sharing is needed, in the face of what we're getting from the press (newspapers included). I wish I could do more to support you, so that your programs could grow and expand!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:01 PM	Mike : Without the News Hour I could not get a honest view of world news. I really appreciate the listing of the members of the Armed Forces that have lost their lives. Commercial news programs wont do this as it would be too controversial and may actually upset the White House and George Bush. They would not want to appear supporting one view or another. The News Hour puts the news out there as it should be with no spin or political views...... Keep up the Great Work.... Thanks Mike P.S. I will continue to give my money to PBS

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:01 PM	yolie canales : Are you kidding? We love you guys. Cable news sucks, network news is a joke and we're not stupid. I also read the NY Times Sunday paper. It takes me all week. I miss Mr. McNeal and I love Jim Lehrer and everybody else on the News Hour. You are the only real news on TV. Thank you.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:00 PM	Lynn Tamms : I couldn't survive without PBS. I depend on it to give me "the truth" about what's going on in the world....all over the world.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:00 PM	SJ : Honest news, no baloney or phoney .

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:00 PM	barry kushner : In my opinion, the best programming on television in any include Frontline, Masterpiece Theater, Nova, American Experience & News Hour. There are many other favorites. Without PBS, I would hardly have any other use for TV.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:59 PM	Angela Jacobson : My husband and I can't imagine television without PBS. Our nightly question to each other: "What's on?" doesnt even refer to anything else but Channel 13. The News Hour is indispensable and so are many other programs. Nature is a delight, Frontline is thoughtful and Specials like operas etc., a wonderful treat. Please continue undeterred!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:58 PM	A Citizen : I was commenting and lost it, don't know if you got it. Have people made this point? There are people who don't have or can't have Cable, Cable, Cable. I don't and appreciate the two stations I get of which PBS is one of them. The other one is totally sit-com. I offer that up, for if it was not for PBS, we would not get the news nor the quality programming. HD will put an onus on us. The authors' use of the term "mustiness" is cute and falls short of quality journalism. How about the Mustiness of the 60 minutes crew and McCain and Reagan? How old are the authors? Do they appreciate quality of life and wisdom? Are they 3rd and 4th. decades? Thanks,

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:58 PM	Mal Zerden : We do not have cable and I'm sure that there are others that do not have cable. As a result, PBS is even more valuable as an alternative to traditional stations to many of us. Thanks and I hope you continue on for many years.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:58 PM	Cynthia : My daughters and I love PBS for the children's shows. We can no longer depend on Disney as much of what's on the Disney channel is not appropriate for children. PBS's Ruff Ruffman and Cyberchase are among two of the children's shows that we enjoy watching together. Not only are they educational but they are truly fun to watch. Cable and other TV now leave a lot desired. We used to watch Disney but both the Disney shows as well as some of the commercials were simply not appropriate for kids. I personally enjoy watching the financial news as well as the BBC news. Thank you PBS and keep up the great work! You ARE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF OUR EDUCATION AND ENTERTAINMENT IN OUR HOME!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:58 PM	Stan Lewis : PBS is the best program on TV.I watch it every evening for the News Hour and all the other programs on PBS. I cannot imagine TV without The News Hour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:57 PM	Abe : Keep PBS and the news hour!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:57 PM	S. B. Sully : I have no doubt that this article was written by someone in a minimum of a two bedroom house or apartment, central heat and air, high speed internet, cable or satelite T.V, and High definition television. Here in the real world, living on Disabled Veterans pay, and all others living on Social Security or fixed incomes most likely don't have the life this person does. I depend on PBS for educational programming and I depend on The News Hour for the most unbiased report I can find on free T.V. My question is why does the NY Times seem to be attacking everything that doesn't fit into their opinion of what the world should become?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:56 PM	Melissa : Just wanted to echo all of the positive comments, and add that in our home, PBS is our lifeline to sanity. Still necessary? ABSOLUTELY - now more than ever.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:56 PM	Bonnie Towles : This is a no brainer ... I pay for cable access, but still must rely on PBS for accurate news, innovative exploration of arts, culture and science, and a comprehensive, unblinking look at our role throughout the world. If I had only one station available to me, I would choose PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:55 PM	Minh Nguyen : PBS puts U.S. listeners on the same footing with the citizens of countries using state funds to provide good journalism to all. It is the only channel where we could see statesmen, politicians, business and civic organization leaders spend enough time to discuss issues to a level of depth not commercially attractive to the regular networks. It is a marvel that such an institution could exist in a market-based economy, and an important lesson for the emerging economies on how to build an independent journalistic civic organization outside the control of the government.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:55 PM	Alex Feldman : PBS is vital source of information for me. I could find any other video station with in depth news and analytics. BBC news, NBR and News Hour - my every week day routine.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:54 PM	barrylium : If there were no PBS television, I would sell my TV set, because commercial TV, with few exceptions worth watching, is a noxious brew of tripe, buncombe, and snake oil.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:53 PM	Bill : I realize that some of the PBS programing is a bit stale but Bill Moyers, David Broncaccio and Zacharia are absolutely invaluable to the public discourse. Without Bill Moyers, who would take on the conservative media (FOX)? Certainly not the mainstream stations increasingly owned by large media conglomerates? I do not consider what Moyers does as hand wringing - that is a stupid put down.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:53 PM	Lynn : I am a loyal fan of PBS, especially the Newshour. Thank you Jim Lehrer and team for an accurate, informative news program. I appreciate the added bonus of not having to sit through people yelling across each other to make superficial points. It seems ironic that a newspaper would raise the issue of irrevelance. Thank you and please let us keep funding PBS to bring us such wonderful programs as Newshour, NOVA, Bill Moyer, etc.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:51 PM	Eleanor Murray : I can't imagine enjoying our life as much as we do without being able to look forward to the many prograns PBS offers. We especially appreciate "The NewsHour" because of the indepth segments that discuss important issues in an unbiased manner with ourstanding experts. How they are able to present these knowledgable people so promtly following an event is amazing to us. Many of our friends share our regard for this program and also watch it every night. We are retired and in our mid 70's. We contribute monthly to our local OPB and really appreciate the lack of comercials on public broadcasting. The recognition of the spnsors at the beginning or end of the program does not bother us at all and we see the fund drives as necessary because of the funding from the federal government being cut on a regular basis. We can and do program PBS programs for later viewing. The shows we pre-program for when we are not at home are: "The NewsHour", "Nova", "Nature", "Bill Moyers", "Masterpiece Theater", "As Time Goes By", and various other specials available that interest us. We look at the monthly program guide and make our choices. Please, please, stay on the air. We appreciate you so much. Eleanor Murray PS. The reporting and interviewing staff of "The NewsHour" are excellent and professional in their manner. We appreciate their straight forward syle free of emotionalism and sensationalism and their courtesy to all guests no matter their viewpoint. EM

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:50 PM	Christine : It seems that entertainment has replaced education in society today, so it’s no wonder the Times is asking the question, Is Public Television relevant? I can see Ben Franklin rolling over in his grave. The whole premise of democracy is based on an educated electorate. We now have a generation that has difficulty concentrating, an inability to think critically, and people who are too busy or lazy to read. Public television gives us unadulterated views of what is going on in the world with news shows (The News Hour is appointment viewing) indepth documentaries like Frontline, and a host of other news AND educational shows that aren’t written in soundbytes or seven-minute segments for the commercial breaks. PBS is more relevant than ever if we expect to have a core constituency of citizens who can thinking critically.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:50 PM	Jerry : Very sad day in journalism that the NY Times now has more in common with the NY Post....extremely shoddy work.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:48 PM	Jerry : It is very sad to see a newspaper such as the NY Times sink to such low reporting standards. It is equally sad to see the national media hesitate to criticize the paper due to the power it holds within the industry. Why don't you have an anonymous poll for the print media and I am sure you will recieve a significnant amount of frustration for such shoddy work.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:46 PM	DJ : Shields and Brooks are two of the best minds in political analysis. These gentlemen have a civilized dicussion about serious political events and are unmatched in intellect in any forum. I like PBS very much and consider its method of delivering the news to be invaluable in this day and age of 5 second news delivery on all the other networsk. PBS news provides critical analysis of news events, that detailed. Keep doing what you are doing PBS! DJ

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:45 PM	Katrin Venema : I was born in Germany and my first contact with American culture came in the form of Sesame Street in the 1970s. German television created its own German version of this program, but once a week the American version was shown. This program helped me learn English and was responsible for my interest in the US.I came to the US as a student and eventually became a US citizen. One of the reasons for wanting to become a citizen was my involvement in politics and the desire to be able to vote. I would not have been able to become an informed citizen had it not been for PBS which I have been watching for over 20 years. My husband and I do not earn a lot of money and we do not want to spend what we earn on commercial TV. Having three free channels (PBS, PBS HD and Create)allows us, as well as our son, to watch quality television without having to pay the price for cable. Public television is an important part of my life: as a teacher I use it with my students, as a parent I use it in raising my son and as a citizen I use it to make informed decisions. Only a government uninterested in an educated citizenry would cut the funding for this invaluable public service.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:45 PM	Lin : My hushand and I watch McNeil Leherer new hour at 6 or 7 o'clock every night we can. It is the only serious news program. We trust it to be balanced and relevant. We look forward to David Brooks and Mark Sheilds analysis of the weekly news. It would leave a serious gap if it were to go off air. It is the only news program that we know about that is not trying to sensationize the news. Yes, sometimes it is boring or frustrating (when both sides are presented and you don't know which is the correct information). Please keep doing what you are doing and don't listen to the NY Times article. Thanks for fair and balanced and indepth reports. You take world events seriously and we appreciate it. Lin Friedman

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:44 PM	Cal Hastings : With shows like Frontline and the Newshour With Jim Lehrer, and the Mystery shows and Masterpiece Theatre, PBS is many cuts above all other cable and broadcast networks, especially in the news and news documentary areas. Frontline and the Newshour are the ONLY real news sources available that cover interesting, and more importantly, 'newsworthy' stories in-depth. The basis of democracy is having an informed public--PBS one of the most important 'legs' on the 'table' of our democracy!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:44 PM	Bill Selman : I believe that PBS television and radio programming is more informative, illuminating and thought provoking than than any of the commercial network or cable options. The News Hour and/or NPR News and The World are far better ways to get in-depth perspective on national and global issues, short of a few select newspapers. Bill Moyers, Frontline, Nova are priceless. Not to mention the quality entertainment provided by Mystery, Masterpiece Theater, National Geographic and so many other programs on PBS. Jim Lehrer's interview with President Bush was priceless. PBS is vital to the health of our country. I would prefer to see Presidential debates produced on PBS rather the "Who Wants To Be A President" game show style "debates" we've been subjected to during the primaries.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:44 PM	Duane Malm : The News Hour is our most important source of news and gives us a more balanced perspective that we can get from any other source. Not incidentally, we are subscribers to the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, the Economist , the Philadelphia Inquirer and Newsweek. Is PBS still relevant? Yuou bet it is! Duane and Sally Malm

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:44 PM	Ann : I love PBS. It is really the only channel I watch (95%). Have watched the News Hour for years. Frontline is amazing. I just wish Charlie Rose wasn't aired in the middle of the day. Masterpiece Theater is also teriffic.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:42 PM	Frances Akeley : TV life without PBS is unthinkable. Their programs are inovative, informed and unbiased. In this age of manipulative sound bite news coverage, PBS provides the indepth reporting needed to make decisions on provacative issues...knowing that some Rupert Murdocks are not spinning. Their programs g where profit driven stations fear to tread. God help us all without such news coverage.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:39 PM	Else Tracy : Without the News Hour I would probably not watch the "news" which has simply become "infotanement". I simply detest commercials and detest sound bites and would probably consider getting rid of cable. I hope I never have to make this decision.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:38 PM	Blackicemaiden : I have been a viewer of PBS since I dont know when. PBS has brought worlds to my low income living room that I would not have known otherwise. The NEWS HOUR their is no comparison. MASTERPIECE THEATER THE performances on that program should be Oscar winners. AMERICAN EXPERIENCE EYES ON THE PRIZE my favorite of all time showed me people behind the KING; one could go on and on, let us not be silly, we simply need PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:38 PM	Tim Hickman : I must say that without PBS and the NewsHour I would not know in depth what was going on in this country or in the world. Local news is lacking substance as well as those 30 minutes that CBS, NBC, and ABC gives me. PBS is needed more now than ever in this time of suspect news blimps that we see. Tim Hickman

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:37 PM	Gus : At age 92, I have watched PBS for decades, enjoying Masterpiece Theater and all the arts, specials and news programs. It's absence would leave a huge gap in my sense of well being. It's irreplaceable.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:36 PM	pepkoka : Frontline is the news program that provides the best in-depth and critical view of the news. Nova provides viewers with the best and most accessible report on important scientific news. The thought of depending on corporate news (cable and network) makes me cringe. In my humble opinion, PBS is critical to keeping our democracy safe and strong.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:36 PM	D. Christine : The Times misses the point. True, there is a great deal left to be desired concerning PBS. Chiefly, the problem is that it has allowed itself to be "dumbed down" like the rest of the media in its desperation to raise funds. Andre Rieu? Wayne Dyer? These folks have gotten rich repeatedly slogging themselves and their products at the PBS audience in the name of saving PBS. Do we need PBS? Absolutely! This is particularly true regarding News. Jim Lehrer is still around because he still gets it. News should never be the "one off" it has become in commercial media. It is really too much to expect that the Times could be fair about this as they so blatently trade on a reputation that is dubious to say the least. The best documentation of that has been on PBS in its examination of the post 911 environment and the run up to the war. The Times, along with both print and electronic news media, allowed themselves to be "played" by the Bush Administration to all our peril. There is no will in commercial media to really follow through when it might upset the sponsors or advertisers. The public has to remind Congress to take care of our national treasures. If we can build billion dollar weapons we can spare some millions for our edification and entertainment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:35 PM	bill : The News Hour is one of the finest and most thorough informational news shows available to the American public. Democracy depends based on knowledge adn diversityof perspective. Commercial TV cannot and does not provide the level of balanced unbiased reporting that charaterizes PBS generally and The News Hour specifically. As an attorney, a nonprofit executive director, and PBS member for decades, I would take local action to protect any threat to your continuing service to the america public. Thanks for what yu do. Bill

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:35 PM	Richard Rieder : It is somewhat amusing to have the NYT describe the Newshour as irrelevant. Its a little like like bugging the confessional. The Times has evolved far to the left and yet is the Newshour's biggest contributor by far. That may be why some think the Newshour is just another left of center outlet. I like both, but lets not kid ourselves, they are a bit redundant.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:35 PM	John : Is PBS relevant? Today, PBS represents the only TV news outlet outlet in the US that is not owned and operated by the rich corporations. This has resulted in a collective homogenized corporate oriented "party line" for all the network news, especially FOX. As such, the corporate network news has gone from an investigative fifth estate that protects the interests of We the People. This is the type of honest network news that ended in the resignation of Nixon for crimes and corruption committed by his administration, to nothing more than a pandering pom-pom squad owned and operated by only a few huge rich corporations who have a vested interest in George W, and his version of the New World Order - of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation. Outside of PBS, the only objective TV news available is BBC, from another country. With corporate domination of TV news, the United States is the only country in the world that has not seen through the sham of the literally colonialist foreign policy of the Bush Administration and his wars. This resulted in the selling of such phrases as "Old Europe", and "Freedom Fries" when European countries didn't bow and do what George W and his neo-con war profiteers wanted. Benjamin Franklin when asked what kind of government we had. He replied, "A Republic if you can keep it." However, if one party or faction owns and operates all the news and sources of information, and keeps the public mesmerized with cheap tawdry sitcoms, football, and similar mindless drivel, interspersed by hard sell commercial propaganda (ie. commercials), how can we have the facts to keep our Republic? If we want the United States to be a bastion of Liberty, we need an even more aggressive, expanded and fully funded PBS - without commercials at all. But if we are satisfied with being only corporate surfs, well then, PBS is not only irrelevant but subversive. Chose. Send your donation now.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:34 PM	Alex Li : PBS, New York Times, NPR, and Wall Street Journal are, unfortunately, the only reliable and relevant American mainstream news sources in today's sad state of instant news environment. PBS provides excellent programming to inform and educate the public. Frontline exhibits the finniest investigative TV journalism today. There is no place for the like of Ken Burns documentaries except PBS. The educational value of NOVA and American Experience are unmatched. While it may be true that its viewership is shrinking, we ought to preserve PBS until there is a more suitable alternative distribution channel for its many enlightening programs. As of today, there is no such outlet on TV. If I can only keep one channel on my television, it would be PBS. I appreciate New York Times for raising the question. As for me, PBS is absolutely necessary.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:34 PM	Anne J. Foltz : I am very happy to hear that so many PBS supporters have responded to the New York Times article about PBS' relevency. I'd like to add my comments to those already made. Approximately 90% of my television viewing is on PBS. The other 10% is BBC World. The reason: PBS (and BBC) offer quality programs that challenge me to think and provide education and information. I especially enjoy the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and his team, Frontline, Masterpiece Theater and Mystery. Is PBS still relevent? To my way of thinking, it certainly is. No other network provides the programs they offer. Anne in Calgary, Alberta, Canada--A U.S. and Canadian citizen.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:33 PM	phyllis harris : I didn't hear the mention about this opportunity because I don't listen to the recap of the news after the final segment of the Lehrer News Hour. I must not miss this opportunity to express my LONG support of the News Hour, Masterpiece Theater, Mystery and the many other entertainments and informational programs. I thought the NYTimes was simply doing what newspapers do--take positions to rile readers and I would not take them seriously. (I only see the sunday edition.) Especially when they reported such great increases in viewership over the years. Let me cast my vote with the others who endorse PBS whole heartedly. I, too, regret that about 5-10 minutes of every half hour has to be used for advertising of corporate sponsors, but for the privilege of the programming I rely on, I put up with it. Long may you reign. No other worthy competition is out there.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:31 PM	David Vigen : PBS is an absolute commodity. Like precious gold, it is an established element in our universe. Could PBS be improved? It is, all the time. As an informational source for persons who wish to go a bit deeper it is the most faithful and constant answer to their needs. Of course, other sources sometimes improve, but not much. Cable news continues to be a dim light with some outside force, such as Fox's Murdoch pulling the strings of the marionettes. Listeners also must improve, doing basic reading and research on their own. But as a starting point, a guiding point and a decent and fair point, PBS cannot be beat. David C. Vigen, Iowa City, IA

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:30 PM	tiaotse : Nonsense! Gobbledegook! Sometimes journalists have nothing better to write about. When our children were little, we were so grateful for PBS. We were determined not to expose them to the commercial wasteland of major networks. Since profit from ads paid for by advertisers dictated content, we made sure our children did not watch network tv. Our children grew up watching Mr. Rogers, and his gentle compassionate world of make believe, and sometimes they watched Sesame Street. But this limited diet of humane broadcasting, non-aggresive in nature made them better people. There is no comparison between what passes for television on the cable channels, and what PBS offers. PBS is not only more intelligent programming but more challenging. Shame on the current administration for cutting funding to PBS. PBS is such quality television. Seriously! JT

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:29 PM	Leif Kindberg : Those that say PBS has seen its day far underestimate its significance in our society. The team of outstanding reporters, writers are far to valuable a source of journalism to even begin to suggest it should be eliminated. As a child growing up in rural Arkansas with no cable beyond a single channel over the airwaves, PBS and the The News Hour with Robert MacNeil and Jim Leherer was irreplaceable. The News Hour is the only U.S. based television program I have found that even begins to provide viewers something more than entertainment marketing. It is a tremendous asset to the American people and remains one of the absolute best news programs on the air.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:27 PM	Phoebe Magee : I depend on PBS for both TV and radio, and it is more relevant today than ever. Programs like Newshour, Frontline, Now and Bill Moyers are so necessary in this age of soundbites. For sheer pleasure there are Masterpiece Theatre, Great Performances, American Experience, Nature, Mystery and countless others. This Canadian is a long-time supporter, and I think Gwen Ifill is the best thing since sliced bread! Keep going!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:25 PM	RGinTexas : The Times article makes pretty clear to me what the problem is with PBS. It has been starved of funds to keep the programming up to speed and then pronounced decrepit! In spite of that, it is still the best fare on TV. I am a political "junkie" and have been constantly watching the cable networks to see coverage of the presidential campaign. It is striking how different the atmosphere is on these channels, even on the ones that I like for the depth and constancy of their coverage. If the Newshour had the resources to match all the technology that the cables have, we would really have something worth watching! And these comments only address the character of the shows. The impact of the constant advertising is more than I can bear. I would not be able to stand the cable channels without my DVR. I have gotten into the habit of starting all my shows late so I can fast forward the commercials. Without that capability, I don't think I could stand the steady diet of assault on my senses that the ads constitute. My issue with the Newshour is that it does not have the resources to do the job it could, and it is not long enough to cover everything that it should be covering. It should be a news two hours!! Many other shows on the channel are also outstanding. Where else on the air can we find things like American Experience, Nova, Frontline, Great Performances, Washington Week, McLaughlin Report, Now, Moyers, and on and on and on! There is nowhere! It would be a travesty for us to allow PBS to be diminished any further.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:25 PM	Emmet Pircle : PBS has gone downhill in the last few years. If I am never offered another Antiques Roadshow, American Ballroom, or This Old House I will live quit happily. However, the News Hour alone justifies the continued existence of PBS, and I eagerly scan the listings for the increasingly rare Nova

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:24 PM	Joe DiMaio : PBS and the News Hour are far more than necessary, they are absolutely vital and essential to me and my entire family. When I first heard of the Times article I felt an immediate illness in my stomach. What in hell would we do without PBS and the News Hour? That bunch of piddle on commercial television is offensive,a arrogant and stupid as hell. Belt gets pulled a bit tighter next month so we can donate a few pezzuzas to PBS. Hugs to all the gang at the News Hour. They're terrific! I hope you good folks feel as much comfort from our support now--in a time of challenge-- as we sense every single day from your dedication to excellence. Auguri, Joe DiMaio. PS: Don't get comfortable. There are forces out there who would dump PBS and the News Hour in a wink if they get the power.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:24 PM	Selih Brown : PBS News Hour may be uncomfortable for people who are not willing to listen to the other side, but for most of us it is absolutely necessary because it is unbiased and always presents the two sides of the issues. It will be even more relevant if, God forbid, the FTC gets away with its plan to allow the same group to own a newspaper and a television chanel in the same area. Thank you PBS for your great service.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:24 PM	Cooper : There needs to always be discussion about our media. This is just another article that needs to be written so the benefit of PBS can be proclaimed. Yet, in doing research, one would find in the journalism schools and the "media matters" type of journalistic think tanks that public television and national public radio are two of the most objective resources available where we can go for our news and the continued debate on the perspective of that news. The way that these two news agencies go beyond the simple announcement and are always putting that information into the landscape of today by reaching back into yesterday to explain the significance is extraordinary. Thank you all for your hard work at The News Hour and all the other fine productions from PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:22 PM	Eleanor Hanson : I hope the answer has come through loud and clear: WE DO NEED PBS! As so many others, I have watched the Newshour for many years. I appreciate the sound, intelligent reporting. At one point, the article's author used the word "musty," to describe the Newshour. Where does he get his definition? Surely Jim Lehrer's many years of experience is to be prized, not put down. Is it only the young and the flashy who count? I think not; let us recognize and appreciate what we can learn from people who have "been there." Thank you for your excellent work.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:22 PM	Troy Grooms : "Is PBS relevent?" More than ever. It is the only place I know to get in depth news and when a controversial piece is presented you always get both sides. You not only get both sides but you get it from knowledgeable people in a straight forward non sensational way. Keep up the great effort.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:22 PM	Rev. Dr. and Mrs. James B.Vigen : My wife and I were utterly aghast when we learned that anyone was questioning the value of our wonderful Public Broadcasting Network! At first, I was angry at the NYT for publishing such a piece. I wanted to rise up and support the best station on televsion! But then, I decided I had better read the article before giving a knee jerk reaction. I'm glad I did. It seems to me that the main point of the article was the proposed drastic cut back of federal support for PBS in the most recent Bush budget. That is where people's ire should be directed--at the Bush administration and any Member of Congress that supports the ridiculous notion of reducing funding for the one television channel that provides the American public with in depth news coverage of issues in the public square! There is NO better program for getting an unbiased version of the news than THE NEWS HOUR with Jim Lehrer. We intend to write to both my Senators and my Congressman to tell them how very displeased we will be if they don't act to INCREASE rather than decrease the federal suppport for PBS! In discussing this issue together, we thought the modivation of the Bush administration in cutting funding for PBS was similar to that of Mr Potter, the nasty banker in Bedford Falls who wanted to take over the Bailey Savings and Loan in the classic movie, "It's a Wonderful LIfe". In a confrontation with Mr. Potter in Potter's office, Jimmy Stewart says Potter only wants to take them over because "it's the one thing in town he can't get his hands on". Bush can't stand PBS because neither he nor his wealthy corporate backers (those he once famously called "his base")can "get their hands on it" and control --as they seem to have done with so much else in the corporate, media world.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:21 PM	David Burwasser : The PBS News Hour is a credible, essential, quality source of daily information about the world. No-one should even think that it isn't necessary.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:19 PM	Pamela & James Lombard : I am 57 years old and I grew up on the News Hour. Public television has always been the primary source of our viewing entertainment and news programming including the Connecticut Girls Basketball Team. Without the News Hour, Nova, Nature, Frontline, Masterpiece, etc. our options would be limited to programming that is not globally informative, and overly dramatic to watch. In addition to monthly rising cable charges we will continue to contribute to public television. We totally and completely support and applaud your programming direction and focus which includes. all ages

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:19 PM	Blackicemaiden : I have been a viewer of PBS since I can not remember when. It has brought worlds to my low income living room that I would not have known. The NEWS HOUR speaks for itself their is no comparison. MASTERPIECE THEATER I look at oscar winner Helen Mirren and sometimes think she won really for her role as D.I. Tennyson, American experience EYES ON THE PRIZE in which I hope they will rerun soon open my eyes to the struggle of African Americans many of the stories in this program leave saying to myself I did not know; one can go on and on let us not be silly, we simply need PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:19 PM	so : PBS becomes more important as time goes on. Our government lies to us & most TV news has their own agenda which isn't to give the truth - they're corporate tools. The other cable channels are becoming as bad as Fox. Thanks, PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:18 PM	Jaxphy : If the PBS news were to go away for good this would be a precedent for other PBS programs. Then the fun begins. The president during the state of the union address will be made to say "We will be right back after a short commerical break". Better yet, (With the president looking at the camera)"We will be right back after these important messages!". The chain of events on how the advertisement money would go would be even a greater fun experiment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:18 PM	Mike Long : PBS is the VERY BEST news on television.Without it in my opinion, there would be a great loss for fair and balanced news.You always hear both sides of a argument so you can make a informned decision.THANK YOU PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:17 PM	Arthur G Broadhurst : Is PBS relevant? Not when it does the sort of shoddy reporting that Mr. McNeil showed in this evenings broadcast. He reported the Pentagon denial of the validity of Mr. Obama's story about the US Army Captain who reported that his unit was sent to Afghanistan without proper equipment or sufficient ammunition, requiring using captured munitions from the Taliban. The right wing has been denying that the story was true throughout the day, yet it was easy for those who checked to verify that the story was true. Mr. McNeil ignored the real issue, troops sent without proper equipment, by allowing a Pentagon statement to question the truth of Mr. Obama's story. That is water carrying for the right wing, which we do not need on PBS. Since Mr. McNeil is a golfing buddy of the President, his support of the Republican viewpoint is understandable, but not acceptable on PBS if it wants to be believable in its reporting.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:17 PM	Carol Dees : PBS news is very relavent and necessary. My husband and I watch it faithfully every evening that we can. Keep up the good work. The New York Times is "all wet" this time. :o)

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:16 PM	Dixie Cowen : I look forward to the News Hour every day! Even my grandchildren know that is my favorite program and try to stay quiet. It is the only place on all of TV that I can get objective news without hyperbole or commercials. It is the one show I will not miss. Many other great shows are on PBS and I watch most of them. Life would be so dull withou PBS. Thank you, Dixie Cowen

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:16 PM	joan israel : I want you to know how important pbs has been in my life, from Jim Leher to frontline to mystery theater and I could go on & on. It was totally absurd to print an article like that. The quality of the program is head and shoulders over what is shown on other stations, including expanded cable. What are the politics behind this article ? If you rsvp to these comments, I would like to hear from you. Sincerely , Joan Israel

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:16 PM	Pgh viewer : PBS is a great asset to the community. What is not so--is the biased programming quite evident by Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose prior to the 2006 election. Thankfully Moyers left and Charlie toned down his disdain for George Bush. Sorry ... Moyers is back with a vengeance, injecting his venom even into unrelated program topics. If it requires public support then it should better reflect both sides of an issue.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:14 PM	Mitzie Sanders : I recommend PBS and The News Hour with Jim Lehrer to all of my friends when they express frustration with bias in the media. I explain that The News Hour is an hour long vs the 1/2 hour of broadcast news. The News Hour is truly "balanced" by always striving to have a voice for each side of the debate discussed. I explain that The News Hour does not give you the initial spin of a news item but carries it for several days to flesh it out among pro and con experts. I explain that the bias we, as consumers of news, expect, does not exist on The News Hour. We are able to understand each side of a debate and make up our own minds as to which side we believe is correct or has the valid argument. I admit that my primary reason for watching PBS is news. I also enjoy the many Frontline programs and documentaries. PBS carries programs that are not only interesting but make us, as consumers, more knowledgeable and savvy about history and current events. Watching PBS makes me a more intelligent voice in my home, workplace, and at the voting booth.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:13 PM	carolyn albrycht : My comment, gentle people.....is that the relevance of the Times article, pointing out the relationship of the lobbyist with John McCain, was NOT the relationship issue. The relevance....which was not addressed by either Shields or Brooks on 2/22.... was that....this relationship resulted in inappropriate influence. And.....the resulting vote by the FCC, awarding the Pittsburgh TV license to Paxson Communications, in response to the McCain intervention, was based on this relationship. I really expected more substance from both Shields and Brooks. I am deeply disappointed.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:13 PM	Jacquelyn McBain : And I thought the Times usually had a good sense of reality! The News Hour is invaluable! One of the last places where news is fairly, maturely analyzed without shouting. Honestly! What rubbish the NY Times prints. It's the sort of thing I'd expect to read in the check out line at the grocery store on one of those tabloids...right next to Elvis's extra navel.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:10 PM	Paul : PBS is absolutely necessary because it has some of the best shows anywhere on tv: Nature, Nova, Bill Moyers, Frontline, Lehrer Newshour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:09 PM	From North Carolina : The News Hour is our most important source of in-depth coverage of national and global issues. PBS has provided the best programs for our children in the past and for our grandchildren in the present. This is not to mention the quality of programs in performance and drama. We can't imagine that anyone could seriously ask "if PBS is still necessary"!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:08 PM	Walt and Jane Ward : PBS, particularly the Newshour but also including the other news programs, is essential to understanding today's issues. From Fox to CNN and everything in between, the Newshour gives us balanced reporting to compare with the others. Often only the Newshour covers the story, followed by the others days or weeks later. We have had cable for many years [out here in the boondocks] but the Newshour and PBS generally are our #1 choice most nights.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:08 PM	Suzanne Sayer : The NYT article looks to me like it was praising the radio, and saying that PBS good in its time is becoming obsolute. I pay $6.98 for cable a month and the only thing I look at is PBS. I get 3 PBS channels. I love Public radio, and it does not cost me anything. I cannot afford Discovery or some of the other channels the NYTs refers to so even if it is "musty" I am so relieved to get some intelligent programming even if its Jane Austen all the time. I'd never read her before, so its novel to me. If you took PBS off TV, then all I'd have is the radio, since I can't afford any more intelligetn programming. I love PBS and it needs more public support not less.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:07 PM	Molly Kate : 1. I am appalled at your bias for Obama. A visitor from Mars would think that you were announcing the arrival of the messiah. A phenomenon indeed! The story will change, when real journalists, if there are any left, start demanding that he say something of substance. Unfortunately that will probably be after November. I said 6 months ago that the fix was in. Thanks for the confirmation. 2. PBS is still necessary because of Frontline, Now with Bill Moyers, American Experience and as conduit for great British drama, i.e.Mystery and Masterpiece theater. But the News Hour does more harm than good. You parrot the status quo and do not, I repeat do not, challenge effectively any action of the government or for that matter the corporate media. Your balance point is way right of the good people of America. Hence BORING.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:07 PM	Charlie Armiger : What we, the public, need, is more of what PBS and NPR offers on the airwaves. PBS & NPR need more, not less, funding from us tax payers for the "real and absolute news". This is not much of a sacrafice for the truth and complete information that media mongals buy with BIG BUCKS to fund theirselves.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:07 PM	Rosalyn Borg : Is PBS relevant? Why would anyone even ask such a foolish question. It is not only relevant but necessary. My life would be empty without PBS ( I subscribe to basic cable to get better reception not for the program content). It is all I watch other than the network evening news. There is nothing on the networks or cable that challenges the mind or entertains like PBS nor for children to watch. Where would I, or others be, without The News Hour, Charlie Rose, American Experience, Washington Week, Nova? Everyone doesn't have the money to subscribe to cable. For those, and many others, PBS is essential. Without PBS, who needs a television set.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:07 PM	Jorge : PBS is need it now more than ever before. Considering that most of the commercial coverage of news and local events are identical reduced bullets the real news. Where anyone can get an in depth analysis of any event national or international, excellent shows, and great art? not in commercial tv, they are too busy trying to copy each other's bulletized programming geared to people that do not have the time or good sense to realize they are being fed all the news the commercial conglomerates want them to hear and see and thereafter please watch the mindless reality programs that are now available lacking in content, art or education. I say yes more than ever we need to preserve, grow and ensure PBS is here for generations to come.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:06 PM	Herb and Alice Camp : My wife and I value the News Hour and many other programs on PBS highly. If there is nothing on PBS, our TV is probably off. Prefer if its slant was a bit less leftist, Bill Moyers, and his ilk. MOre balanced hosts politically would be appreciated and lack of balance was the reason I stopped donating to PBS, but we would feel a great loss without PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:05 PM	Mrs.A. Almeida : We Live in San Jose Ca, and we have been watching NewS HOUR at 3:00pm for 20 yrs or longer.Our 7 yr old son grew up watching Jim. Our son even knows when Jim is done he will say " Thank You for Watchin,I'm Jim Learh Thank You and goodnight" when our son was a toddler he use to walk up to the TV when Jim was on and Kiss the screen and say Uncle Jim and be so proud!.Jim and PBS Are a very helpful Station and it needs to be saved. In this day and age the news you find on TV is not very good. PBS needs to stay on. I was raised on PBS and my son is being Raised on PBS,,Programs like Seseme Street,NEW HOUR,,,Bill Moyers,,,ect need to stay around. Thank you and GoodNigt..... Mrs.A, Almeida

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:05 PM	DC Professional : I grew up in the 70s "watching" my parents listen to All Things Considered, Morning Edition, Prarie Home Companion, until one day I discovered I wasn't watching anymore - I was listening, and I've never stopped. Public radio and televsion, in particular, the NewsHour, Nova, American Experience, and Frontline, provide food, not fodder, for the mind. They continue to be a refreshing respite from commercial television and radio and help to daily remind me that life isn't course, banal or reduced to a "TV or sound bite" everywhere. I disagree with one viewer who wants to watch Charlie Rose earlier. I love his guests, but if he ever stops talking over them, I may watch him more and want to see him earlier, too. Bless PBS and may you continue!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:05 PM	a viewer : I am astonished at the question. In a world of cable channels where an inane and frenetic chatter of opinions passes for news, and the viewer is blitzed with loud commercials, the entire viewing experience leaves one with blinkered lucidity. I have supported PBS for years, and fully intend continuing to do so. I think that the quality of the programming speaks for itself, and am unconvinced that there are great choices besides PBS out there. Shutting it down will make me lose all faith in the media.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:04 PM	Laura Corona : The New York Times is wrong - PBS is indeed relevant! I look forward at day's end to The News Hour. The news and intelligent coversation without the screaming and hype of cable news programs. Frontline, American Experience and Masterpiece Theatre can not be replaced. There are some of us who still love civilized programming!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:04 PM	SueBrinn : While I do enjoy some programs on commercial TV, I could get by without them, whereas not having PBS to watch would be devastating. From the in-depth, objective coverage of The News Hour and the different perspectives of NOW and Bill Moyers, the hugely informative Frontline, to the excellent Masterpiece Theatre and Mystery, and the wonderful musical specials, PBS offers diverse, educational and entertaing programming. There is nothing like it on television.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:03 PM	Claudia Waters : Are you kidding? Is PBS still necessary? Now, more than ever. News reporting on commercial radio and television simply repeats the same few comments over and over until they take on a life of their own, far bigger than they deserve. Where else can you find the information from the interviews of Terry Gross and KQED's Michael Krasny, the powerful programming of To the Best of Our Knowledge, On the Media, the environmental reports, nature shows and special news programs that teach us about our world. Not to mention the entertainment of Mystery and Masterpiece Theater. The world would be a far poorer place without PBS, a world where the government, listeners and generous donors create a world of magic that we can all share.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:03 PM	Brenda : I miss Mystery and love Shields and Brooks! PBS is still the best that TV has to offer!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:02 PM	Lana : The Newshour is the only news I trust on television. I depend on its depth of reporting and airing of opposite opinions without the histrionics that other stations allow. We need you!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:01 PM	T.G.I.PBS : In a world where people care more about celebrities than foreign policy, it's wonderful to be able to turn to The Newshour to find out about important issues!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:01 PM	Suzanne Hardin : The News Hour, NOW, Bill Moyer, Masterpiece, Mystery - these are shows I watch regularly and depend on them for news and entertainment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:00 PM	Gregory Freeze : PBS is absolutely vital; nothing can compare with Frontline, Now, and the Moyer show. The decline of investigative journalism (Boston Globe has no foreign correspondents; NYT has reduced its newsroom staff) makes such programs all the more important. The Newshour, I fear, is far less useful. It tends to recycle the same people and plainly prefers to remain within the safe confines of politically correct. It simply fails to address key problems and offer alternative views; too much tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum. I'd like to hear comments, for example, on the view of MANY people that Bush et al should be tried for war crimes; I'd like interviews of presidential candidates to ask not the usual jejune questions and press them (would they support congressional or independent investigations of Bush-era crimes?) Instead, a lot of yapping, with predetermined and predictable statements by the hired-mouths of Washington thinktanks, government agencies, and the like. To be honest, I watch it less and less, and see no reason to think I missed anything. A pity, given the abysmal quality of the cable and network pretense at news coverage. Newshour needs to hire a BBC consult to put some zip, provocativeness, if it is to appear less as a modified loudspeaker for government and thinktank "think-alike."

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:59 PM	Jennifer Riddell : PBS is necessary. I resent this Times article (better suited for the editorial page, not the front of Arts & Leisure as some sort of received idea), even as I look at the Times on a daily basis, as I do PBS. However, the writer's specious arguments which suggest that we should allow the market to do its thing and eliminate all but the "blockbusters" (American Idol? America's next top model?) that rise to the surface like overfatted cream (the cultural equivalent of empty calories) is absurd. An audience that the writer does not address that is a huge user of PBS is the education audience -- teachers in our school systems increasingly bereft of astute cultural or artistic learning-- watching on TV, but also using the DVDs and website. This is a huge value not to be underestimated!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:59 PM	john maloney : Well there you go again.... Just finished watching Friday's wonderful edition of the Newshour, and sure enough, Jeffrey Brown did a really nice piece that covered this "On-going saga" as a result of the NYTimes article. And yup, you guessed it. He looked at both sides of the issues, comparing results of both surveys, and reporting favorable and un-favorable comments of each. So PBS and Newshour slam it out of the park, but I guess were all accustomed to that. Great show tonight by the way...Thank you very much!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:59 PM	Michael H : next weeks article: Is the printed newspaper still necessary?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:59 PM	M. Knolle : I can't imagine not having PBS. Maybe people who love the ads and the edge would not look at PBS, but I have found so many valuable programs to view over the years. It has serious in depth programming often on topics not to be found anywhere else. I truly appreciate public television and resent a little, that because I have less "edgy" interests that my interests are not relevant or broad. In fact, the scope and depth of public television are not to be found anywhere else in this medium.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:58 PM	joe of oakland : I'm in. When even the best commercial spots during the Superbowl are insipid and insulting, the only commercial free television is Public TV. Of course, there's the noble C-Span, but how much of that can one take?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:58 PM	Ray : We watch PBS because the programs are interesting and thoughtful. The News Hour is the best news program on the air.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:58 PM	Anne Leslie : I do watch, on most evenings, the Lehrer report. I cringe when I hear "...Archer-Daniel-Midlands, supermarket to the world" or Chevron "imagine an oil comany making a difference. etc." Such awful propaganda and "underwriting" is now blatantly commercial. And yet I understand the financial pressures. (I do support WGBH financially). However I vow never to spend another cent when I see "war criminal" Kissinger still occasionally brought in for "expert" comment. Having said all that, except for Amy Goodman-and PBS should carry her as the absolute best news program aired anywhere- it is still the best we have compared either to the Networks or Cable News. Frontine is great. And Bill Moyers is indispensable to our national moral health. The lastest Jane Austen series is simply awful, pandering to a popular taste with very inferior productions. Why in the world PBS would compete with those wonderful earlier BBC (1972) productions or with Ang Lee or Jane Campion is beyond me. However disappointing in some ways, PBS is still the best we have. Keep going. And I will continue to support but with reservations. Anne Leslie

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:56 PM	Gerhard Summerer : No PBS ? What would we do. Real news? There is only the News Hour, where all sides to an argument get to finish their point of view without being shouted dorn. It is very sad, that PBS does not get more funds to fulfil its mission, rather then being cut back time and again. Shame on the politions for being complicit in dumbing down the US. Where can kids learn about nature, animals, technoligy in way that ensures they are no belittled but excited about learning withour even re

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:56 PM	P. Pepe : Some of us want quality. PBS offers that. Enough said.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:56 PM	john clarke : The pbs, in my opinion is one of the few organisations to offer balanced internal reporting of US affairs and as a foreign listener I am dependent on its reporting for the true picture of US news and cultural debate

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:55 PM	Eric Edgar : PBS is my number one network for everything. I had the honor and pleasure of visiting the NewsHour studio near my home. A fantastic operation! The Best.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:55 PM	Bob Carstens : Is PBS necessary? Well, does the viewer want to be moved by the unbiased truth or just to be micro-stimulated. PBS is one of the few venues that even comes close to the potential of TV. Every day we drop what we are doing and sit down in front of the News Hour, and then there is Charlie Rose and NOVA and POV and Frontline and much more. McGrath has expressed some ideas to explain his data but he is definitely OUT OF TOUCH with reality.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:53 PM	Margo Hebald : With very few exceptions, PBS is the only television I watch. I can't believe that the New York Times would make such a ridiculous suggestion!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:53 PM	scott fortune : I am a civil rights attorney who represents victims of employment discrimination. Marcia Coyle is an excellent legal correspondent. She explains the Supreme Court decisions better than anyone. Jim Lehrer is the epitome of credibility. My wife and I look forward to the news on PBS at 7pm every day. PBS is Shakespeare compared to the Networks' comic book style of presenting the news.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:52 PM	Ron Mallory : My wife and I have watched the NewsHour nightly for years and hope to for more years! Thank you, Ron Mallory

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:50 PM	Constance K Kent : I depend upon the News Hour for its in-depth objective reporting of news. Also, I do enjoy Masterpiece Theater, American Experience, American Masters as quality entertainment unavailable on any other TV chanel.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:48 PM	Elizabeth M Gerber : Could it be that the reason the present administration would like to get rid of public broadcasting is the list of casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations that the News Hour publishes at the end of the program ? It's the only news program on T.V. that does this "when photographs are available." It really brings it home - and into every American home the awful cost in terms of life that this so called "war" is costing us.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:48 PM	SFBayArea : We highly value the News Hour as a refuge from 'if it bleeds it leads' type of news. It also gives us a perspective on major issues that effect our lives more than local crimes, fires, and human interest stories. We like the format of brief news summaries followed by in-depth discussions or stories. We continue to enjoy the other PBS shows (NOVA, FRONTLINE, etc) even though we are now watching more cable networks (we got cable for the first time in spring 2007).

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:47 PM	Carolyn Shawg0 : I disagree with the idea that PBS is not necessary. I depend on PBS because I believe the programming offers a different perspective on life than other channels...

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:44 PM	Long time viewer : News Hour needs to be updated!! It is too tired. Shields/Brooks are GREAT; worth waiting through all of the "talking heads" topics that are too long, often 4+ "waves" of topic discussion when 1 or 2 covers the point adequately. Lenghten Shields/Brooks! In addition, add more topics but get to the main points, then move on.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:41 PM	Ken and Pat Jamieson : We would seldom turn on the television if it weren't for PBS. My one complaint is that we would like to watch Charlie Rose at some less challenging hour than 11:30 to 12:30.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:41 PM	Marian : I can't imagine the airwaves without PBS and I hope I never have to. The in-depth reporting of The NewsHour is invaluable, particularly since many don't have access to the cable all-news-all-the-time channels. I have been a PBS viewer and supporter for decades and appreciate the breadth of programming. Where else could I watch a stage production of Company in the comfort of my living room? Some of the science programming, such as Nova, is outstanding. I admit that Masterpiece isn't quite up to where it was in its heyday and I do miss Mystery. Yes, there are longer "commercials" at the beginning and end of the programs, but at least they're not in the middle of the broadcasts and they don't use up a third of the broadcast hour. Yup, all the talk during the fund-raising drives can get a bit tedious, but I certainly understand the reasons for it. I would suggest that we need more government funding for PBS, not less.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:39 PM	Kathy : The News Hour is one of the few televised news programs in the United States that ranks highly for objectivity when objectivity is assessed by social scientists. That fact alone makes public support of PBS appropriate and desirable.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:32 PM	Daria Ghiberti : Ithought the comment by the NYT was cheap and unnecessary. Like some many others who have comented, I'd be lost without my evening PBS programs, especially the Newshour, which I try to miss as seldom as possible and is so much more informative than anything except the BBC, which I also enjoy. One thing that riled me about the NYT comments was that they assume we all, or most of us, spend money on cable TV. A lot of us don't spend that money, and feel that PBS more than makes up for it! Long live PBS, and many thanks for fine programming.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:29 PM	Sandy Sondreal : As an American (and Australian) living in Melbourne for the past 35years, I depend on the News Hour for in depth coverage of US & world events. I lead a discussion group for over 50's and the News Hour is one of my main resources. As an American I am proud to direct my class to such quality American broadcasting. As an Australian, I am proud that our public station SBS has included the News Hour in it's programing for many years now. When on my annual visit to family in the States, I still tune in to The News Hour as a welcome relief from commercial & cable TV news. NH presenters are in a class of their own. Reports & interviews never seem hurried. Their moderating skills superb. Each of them has the "Walter Cronkite" factor...their professionalism invites trust and confidence in whatever they may be reporting. Behind the scenes research certainly must be credited for such complete coverage also. I would like to submit the program for some sort of Heritage listing to ensure it's future survival!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:29 PM	Christine : If anything News on PBS should be expanded. In the empty toxically Disney/Orwellian/Huxleyian Brave New World of cable and network TV news, we search for real news! People are thirsting for it! Countless friends say that the the only way they know what is going on in the US is the PBS, BBC Headline News on PBS, and CSpan! To make PBS more relevant leave behind the musty "Keeping UP Appearances" and get even more with it! BBC has a 24 hour news channel, its paid for by English tax payers, why not do the same with PBS! We are thirsting for substance! And not just rocking 80 plus year olds, no -baby boomers and their kids are thirsting too! WE want more culture-ecology-new eco solutions- dialogue-live international news-intelligent international journalists viewpoints-interviews with heads of state-with underground grassroots movements etc etc! There is a huge vaccum to fill with vibrant news programming. Lead and we will follow!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:25 PM	Jana Nelson : Is PBS necessary? YES INDEED! We were in NYC a few years ago at the Hilton Hotel. We had planned to stay in on Sunday night to see the last episode of "Masterpiece Theater" only to discover that AM that the Hilton didn't program PBS on their TV system. We were so disappointed that we checked out prematurely and went across to the Sheraton, even though the room was inferior and more expensive! We need PBS and NPR desperately and I don't understand why every Republican dominated Congress and Administration in Washington D.C. tries to kill them.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:23 PM	Gail Bachman : There is nothing else available on cable TV which does the same job as "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer". As a viewer of The News Hour for many years I can say it is the ONLY evening news program which is actually fair and balanced. It also provides details and background which the others can't or won't. I understand the NY times has questioned its relavance and I'm now going to read that article so I can try to understand why any reasonable person would suggest such a thing. Thank you for listening.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:21 PM	Erle Norman : PBS is still relevant and necessary. As a taxpayer, I like the idea of my money being spent to support PBS. Providing adequate funding and driving out the political hacks could bring excellent results. For TV viewers who cannot afford or refuse to pay the cable company's pound of flesh, PBS provides an over the air broadcast of quality.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:18 PM	MARY ABBOTT : PBS is necessary in our lives and has been over many years. When our son was a youngster, he enjoyed and benefited from Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers Neighborhood. Today children’s programming remains an important part of PBS, which is one of the reasons we continue to contribute after forty years as members. We have long valued the news programs: Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyers Journal, Washington Week and Now. They inform and enrich us and are interesting. And we enjoy a lovely mix of other programs, including, As Time Goes By, Frontline, Charlie Rose, Nova, Masterpiece, and Mystery. And, joy of joys, this is all with no commercial interruptions! - Mary

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:17 PM	alice hg : I have been hearing Jim Lehrer talk about the relevance of PBS, because I missed the NYT's article. I echo many of the comments I have read. Commercial TV is truly a wasteland. I am happy to contribute 'cause there is little else out there. Commercial TV contributes, in my opinion, to the dumbing down and adds unnecessary violence to the TV screens. Our children should not watch most of the commercial channels because the "stupidity" and violence is more than necessary. And this adult will watch very little because most of programmming panders to the lowest common denominators. Sad, but true, so is PBS necessary - - yes,yes,yes!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:17 PM	Gerry : I hope that the discussion will lead to some new manners to pump up funding for PBS. And that ought to include more local production for PBS stations. One controversial way would be for cable subscribers to all pay a nominal fee on their bill to help support content. This fee now exists in our locale to subsidize community access stations ( a tiny audience but it is a public good...) Public TV is a feature most other countries support and brag about. Shame on US for having to even defend it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:16 PM	Jenny : Relevant? Emphatically, YES. Jim Leher's News Hour is my main source of detailed news. Nova, Frontline, Charlie Rose, the great Saturday cooking shows.....the list goes on and on for my husband and me. As for my grandchildren, they watch only PBS children's shows despite having access to other cable cartoon shows. Now, during the election time, PBS is especially important. We would be lost without it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:15 PM	Haydee : The NYTimes in the morning and the Newshour in the evening- that's where I get my news. I sometimes throw out sections of NYT without reading them, but I have made sure to record PBS news so that I don't miss that. I would estimate 95% of what I watch is on PBS. VERY RELEVANT for me. A proud 13 member

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:14 PM	Aaron : The NewsHour's thoughtful long-form stories are what's missing on the rest of TV. As a major plus, there's no yelling between pundits, which is so prevalent everywhere else. Keep it up NewsHour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:09 PM	Marianne : Although I am a member of our local PBS and NPR stations, I am the only one in our household who usually watches PBS (when I can get the tv) or listens to NPR (which is easier because I do have my own radio). I consistently watch The Jim Lehrer News Hour because everyone else allows me that indulgence from 7-8PM which is when we get it in our area. I have noticed though that some make it a point to watch with me on Friday nights when Shields and Brooks give their take on the week's news. I think the PBS news is the fairest and most balanced. I'd hate to lose their coverage.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:08 PM	Stephanie Swiger : PBS is 95 percent of what I watch on TV and also radio. The only other program I listen to on radio is c-span. Are the Republicans trying yet again to destroy public broadcasting? Republicans would like nothing better than to be a dictatorship.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:04 PM	Peter Simon : If the NYT is positing the question whether PBS is still relevant, as an erstwhile Brit, one might just as well posit the questions whether the BBC is still relevant, to which the international community will answer decidedly in the affirmative. The NYT would have inaugorated a more interesting & relevant discussion whether the news programs on ABC, NBC, CBS, & FAX are still relevant? All I can say: Thank God for PBS, because compared to all the other electronic news outlets are "mush" compared to PBS and especially the News Hour. A quality news program must be willing to tackle unpopular, unfriendly (toward the U.S.) national & international issues by giving them sufficient time to inform, explain, educate by zeroing in on the principal issue and, if opinonated, provide diverse opinions from people who have knowledge in the field under review. We need PBS in general and, in particular, PBS News Hour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:59 PM	d.clemente : What I love about The Newshour and other PBS news related programming, is the fact that it is nice to be able to go somewhere, and see the news covered by people who behave like adults. No cable news network shouting or screaming. No discussions designed to just showcase the farthest extreme positions on any given issue. I am not sophisticated enough, to know why PBS news programs, are so superior to network and cable news programs in this regard. Perhaps it is because PBS does not face the pressure to turn a profit. But I find the difference refreshing. I find PBS news programs, to be a fine example for our children, of how sincere, thoughtful and intelligent discussions of social and political issues can be done. I am incredibly thankful for PBS. And I pray it never vanishes from my television screen.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:58 PM	wale mohammed : It is sickening for NEWYORK TIMES-newspaper to unnecessarilly begin-stiring-up an annoying controversy....over a NETWORK as genuine and really informative as PBS. May be NYT's editorial board or the individual who wrote the story...was a little bit-idle...and felt let me just do some silly,or nutty thing.IT IS REALLY NECESSARY TO SAY HERE THAT PBS's programmes are to me more authentic-than most regular channel-programmes....that I see as either representing a specific individual in government or so.WHO IN THE WORLD,WHO THINKS RIGHTLY THAT WOULD ASK FOR DISCONTINUATION OF PUBLIC-oriented network like PBS.....

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:58 PM	Christopher Doyle : I am OBLIGATED to comment! First, my "TGIF" begins at %:00pm with the BBC, then a regular network (a few world events, mostly entertainment stuff), then NEWS HOUR, BOYERS, NOW, then Gwen Ifil. If there's a 1/2 hour space, I switch to our "local" PBS (KVCR), then TAVIS SMILEY, then CHARLIE ROSE. Our local PBS (KVCR) has leased a bunch of classic movies for those of us who pray for 90-minutes without a blaring car commercial, or being hawked an ED-pill. No PBS?....Be afraid!....Be VERY AFRAID!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:54 PM	Frank Hartmann : I would be lost, absolutely lost, without the Lehrer coverage of news and events. No other program in all of television is as thorough, as trustworthy, or as inclusive. I am, at the moment, in a different city,and am looking at my watch. It is 5 minutes before 6 - I have to find the Lehrer program. If there is need for anything to help this program, please ask.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:52 PM	Neal Madnick : The NewsHour, Frontline, POV, International Dispatch, NOVA, and Charlie Rose are reason enough that PBS is INDISPENSIBLE!!!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:50 PM	Ginny : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is our connection to news programming with actual news, not talking heads full of themselves. Do I watch any other news program...yes, Brian Williams on NBC. But even that is less than we hope for. PBS is the only relevant broadcasting organinzation that I watch because it is tasteful, provides knowledge, culture and none of the "dumbing down" programs. Our country has become less informed and less knowledgeable because of the inane programming on the networks.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:48 PM	Cheryl : Funding for PBS must absolutely NOT be cut, in fact, it should be increased. My husband and I watch The Jim Lehrer News Hour every night. It is 'fair and balanced' in reality. It always presents both sides of any issue. And programs such as Frontline, Nova, Bill Moyers and Now, to name a few are suburb as well. We do not intend to be forced into getting cable which I believe is the reason behind this idea of cutting funding for PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:47 PM	P Norman : I unfortunately missed The News Hour on Monday, Feb 18, but saw the story about the NYT article the following evening. That very same evening, I had watched the ABC Evening News, and as usual, they skipped over, and/or did not even cover some stories that The New Hour did. We are among a significant number of people in this country who do not have access to the cable news shows, such as they are, and who must rely on PBS for the majority of our information and entertainment. We especially appreciate the coverage of the presidential candidate debates, which you cover in much more depth than network news. I find it especially galling that those debates are not available to people without cable/satellite. This is truly becoming a situation where only the well-heeled and those living beyond their means have access to good information about our world and nation. Keep up the good work! P.S., the NYT writer obviously does not watch The News Hour very much, or he'd know that Mr. Lehrer has largely handed over the day to day reporting to younger people already!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:45 PM	k.d. : I think PBS is still very relevant. I believe, even if there are now more choices on TV because of cable, many PBS shows are far superior to what one finds on cable. I belive Frontline is unsurpassed in providing insight into current news events. I also enjoy Nova, NOW, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and most of their history shows. I think PBS coverage of news and science topics is very in-depth and revealing, sometimes including material never seen or heard before. Although there are some good cable shows, like Planet Earth, I still think PBS has much more to offer.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:38 PM	Thomas Ronayne : Is PBS - and by implication The New Hour - relevant? Uh, yeah, particularly in contrast with commercial television (and, one might point out, commercial newspapers such as the vaunted New York Times). Fifteen minute nightly news? Ha! Twenty-plus minutes of commercials every broadcast hour? Ugh! Articles such as this one? Bah! One might better ask if The New York Times is relevant - and, in my opinion, not so often any more. Yeah, I'll take (and help pay for) PBS any day.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:33 PM	Charlie Armiger : If there were no PBS or NPR there would be NO alternative non commercial broadcasting on our airwaves. Because the vision JFK has,overtime, been diminished and commercialism has bought most of our attention,and private airwaves(either uninhibated thruthful research or plain entrtainment)is at it's best when not polluted by money. In the film 'The Insider" I heard a comment that was supposed to have been said by Mike Wallace stating' if his ratings collapsed on an insignificant story that he did not want to be subjected to the "wasteland of Public television". That goes to show that our main stream media (and jounalists) has perhaps not has the best interest for it's consumers no matter how 'chatty' and the 'in your living room' atmosphere they try to present. Thease common news casters are not my friends and they are are certantly not my neighbors. I'm glad to see that the new HD networks are stiving to make an impact towards a knowledgeable and in depth premise for their programing and I hope they don't get bought out or diluted in their content for $$$$.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:31 PM	wib smith : Relevant..yes. Compromised....somewhat. Public TV really does need government subsidy, and I see no problem with that, since we taxpayers subsidize banks, oil companies, peanut butter, schools, our congressmen, and so on. My Nasville Public TV station is forced to show charlatans selling their DVD's on dubious financial advice, pseudo spirituality, and other 2 hour long sessions of infomercials, interupted by begging for donations, which keeps my TV dark for two weeks every six months. Washington Week is variable entertainment. It generally has the same rotation of Big Media Hacks who are responsible to their own papers, tv stations for being profitable,and WW rarely brings in McClatchy types or others who have better reeporting records [Iraq, mainly]. The quality of commentors is variable. Newshour should avoid having a Repub vs Dem politician comment [Woodruff can't get them to answer the question posed, and their replies obfuscate],and stick to vetted academics..not think tankers who are supported by Big Money. Moyers is great, Jane Austen is great, Independent Lens is good. Nova is great. I hope Public TV can regain its footing, continue the good stuff, and stop aping Big Media. I am grateful the commercials do not interrupt the programming. We tape, beginning 2 minutes late and stop 3 to 6 minutes early.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:29 PM	Lennie : Washington Week has never been better; Gwen Ifill is TOPS. The Lehrer Newshour is the best news broadcast on all of television. But PBS needs more news and commentary than just these 2 shows. In years past we watched PBS about 80% of our tv time. Now it is closer to 20% after you add in Masterpiece Theater. We need more and longer Washington Weeks and more shows that discuss other great issues such as how to fix our healthcare system or rescue our country from financial ruin.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:29 PM	Dick Rose : PBS news and programming would not be needed if there were a readily accessible alternative. The NewsHour beats every other source, even allowing for the annoying commercials at the start and finish. It beats other outlets by selecting a few stories and covering them in detail, allowing everyone to speak. By the way, the NewsHour people also speak in complete sentences. The stories selected are not always what I would have selected, but they never stoop to celebrity glitter stories or trying to pump up the entertainment programming on PBS by creating faux-news. Other news programming on PBS, whether in the pundit-show or documentary formats, is also produced to a higher standard than the self-promoting, self-infatuated, self-interrupted, red-faced screaming that passes for news elsewhere on the dial.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:29 PM	Eugenia & Chuck Allderdice : We watch the NewsHour without fail every night. What we appreciate most is the unbiased reporting, many times followed by in-depth interviews of opposing positions. Intelligent discourse without the shouting and name-calling that some cable channels disguise as "news." We also appreciate the Honor Roll of Service men and women who have died in Iran and Afghanistan. We say a silent prayer for them and their grief stricken families. Senseless deaths caused by the Bush administration criminals!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:24 PM	Randle Carpenter : Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote, "The mind of this country, taught to aim at low objects, eats upon itself." Thank goodness for PBS and the News Hour! PBS is the last bastion for those still interested in culture and informed discussion of the times in which we live. The persistent threat of anti-intellectualism seems to have infected our elected officials who seek to limit funds for PBS. The federal government should be increasing its funding for PBS if those who represent us are truly interested in the benefits of an informed public.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:23 PM	Janet Huntington : As far as I am concerned the only chanel that is worth watching for news content and presentation is PBS. Yes, someties it is a bit tedious, but it gives real news, not just entertainment. Beyond tha fact that it is thorough, and even more important, is the fact that I trust it to be factual and as unbiased as possible. I read a local newspaper every day and find it interesting for local news, but its wider coverage is poor. I try to catch the webcast of the NYTimes most every day, but I tend to like it mostly for its opinion columns. For everyday broad coverage PBS is the best!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:23 PM	ec : excellent global coverage of news, analysis, insight and wisdom demonstrated on PBS in programs such as the News Hour are invaluable to creating an informed citizenry. The stakes have never been higher and it is critical to continue support of public television.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:22 PM	Billy from Maine : The News Hour is our only evening source of news. When we occasionally venture to the other channels, we are repelled by the talking (often yelling) head sensationalists that call themselves journalists. If PBS were to vanish, what would we do? Probably just Google the news. All that being said, it would behoove PBS to overhaul much of it's programing. When it comes to the "natural" world, history and science...it's time to kick it up a notch. And it should all be in the quality of HD that we get from the Discovery Channel. Ah, but how do we pay for all these improvements? Perhaps it's time to find some more major donors that can "endow" and provide endless support. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Larry Ellison...are you listening? Wouldn't it be great to no longer rely on the whims of "public" financing? Somewhere there must be some enlightened, benevolent rich dudes out there who cherish this network. Speilberg, Clooney, Pitt...empty your pockets!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:21 PM	Eva : "Is PBS necessary???" I live alone and I won't get a dish because I would not be able to get PBS! I can watch programs that are refreshing without violence, sex, and vulgar language. I can watch news that is very informative.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:21 PM	Paul Cain : I absolutely love PBS, and watch it all the time. Compared to the wasteland of "reality" TV, and other shows which waste my time, I truly believe that PBS is "Television Worth Watching." I try to get home from work each night to watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, and I've been tuning in their coverage of the political races this season. I particularly enjoy the analyses of David Broder and Mark Shields. I also very much enjoy the nature programs that the channel offers, documentaries about artists such as Hank Williams and about historical subjects, such as "Eyes on the Prize." I've picked up plenty of good tips while watching "This Old House" and "Ask This Old House," and have always wished that I could build the items that are crafted on "New Yankee Workshop." My favorite PBS program of all is "Antiques Roadshow." It is endlessly entertaining and interesting, because you never know which objects folks will bring to the taping. Every time I tune in the Roadshow, I learn something new, whether it's about artists, printing techniques, furniture or wonderful antique toys. PBS is more relevant than ever; it is truly an educational oasis. If only I could get PBS from preempting "Antiques Roadshow" during fundraising campaigns, it would be perfect! Thanks again, PBS, for all that you do.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:20 PM	DellF : The question is "is the print media still relevant" most Americans make their life's decisions based on the information they receive from the internet and Television. Despite the quality of the NY Times, I get my information daily from the NYTimes webite, CNN website and 1010WINS website during the day and then PBS and the "Newshour" to distill the volumes of information into much more manageable, useful, unbiased and balanced news. PBS and the newshour is the information paradigm of the future. The New York Times the paradigm of the past.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:15 PM	John Willard : Is PBS necessary? I guess the question comes from a publication secure in its necessary-ness. Of course it's necessary. I have cable - nothing on it that would ever replace PBS. Is it perfect? that's not the point. Is it the only source that people should have for news? No, but that's also not the point. Just think of the alternative. I am so sick of the breathless teaser lines on cable news just before commercial breaks. You are almost certain not to get the item teased about when they return. Network news? basically a series of headlines ending with a feel-good story. Closer looks? Two minutes is a closer look?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:10 PM	lorraine : How Dare They!!!!! The New York Times is way off base. The News Hour is the only place we get our news. When all the other news stations and newspapers carry the sensational murders and Hollywood gossip that they call news, we know that we can get the real news from the News Hour. Jim, you and your team of reporters are the best. The questions you ask are so insightful and thought provoking. I learn so much from the stories you present. Please continue to what you do and don't ever retire.Ithink you need to get David Brooks to set his newspaper straight.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:10 PM	Joan Bartos : The Newshour is the only news that regularly features minority and women journalists, commentators and guests of all ages. I think the seasoned,thoughtful interviews by journalists such as Judy Woodruff and Jim Lerher are wonderful. I adore Gwen Eiffel's ability to ask the really tough questions in her gentle but relentless manner. She is a great role model! I also appreciate the tenor of respectful, conversational debate when addressing the really difficult issues. I only regret that of late The Newshour has not features as many minority, women and/or younger guests. They need to make more of an effort to pull guests from a variety of sources and not be so dependent on the mainstream groups. Listening to an all-white, all-male venue of a cetain age and representing a certain (usually upper middle class, educated) socio-economic status wears thin. I have tuned out of a lot of the regular programming on PBS because it consists of too much popular culture and not enough serious material. KQED, one of our local San Francisco stations is relentlessly fundraising. I do tune in to programs like "Nature" and any environmental or science programs. I also watch Bill Moyers and David Broncaccio as their guests and topics are intellectually challenging and always exciting. Any critic of PBS who suggests that alternative sources of programming like HBO are comparable and readily accessible makes me laugh! How smug and insular to suggest that everyone has the funds to pay for such programming! Even if one has the funds, why should we pay exhorbitant fees for inferior programs? Our government needs to give a lot more money to PBS to improve the overall programming. it is money well-spent.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:07 PM	Clem & Kathie Biddle : Reflecting on these highly supportive comments, do we all put our money where our mouth is? If we want PBS to remain "our" PBS, we must give them our money.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:07 PM	Jens Hanson : If the New York Times thinks PBS is not relevant, doesn't this mean they think Science reporting as on Nova, Music as on Great Performances, good drama as on Masterpiece and more than sound bite news reporting as on the News Hour is irrelevant. Maybe the Times should be paying more attention to its own relevance. For me as a Canadian the New York Times is irrelevant but PBS, which I support, is not

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:02 PM	Joe and Joanne : We watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer every night. Wouldn't miss it for anything. The news is given intelligently and succinctly followed by a well balanced discussion. We also enjoy Masterpiece and Live from Lincoln Center along with local programs, such as Chicago Tonight with Phil Ponce. Commercial television has so much marketing and fewer really intelligent programs that we would be lost without PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:59 PM	jsm : Once again we must wonder who, if anyone, is researching and editing the NYTIMES. Someone with even a cursory knowledge of what Public Television provides could have saved this writer from embarassment. Recent programs such as African American Lives, History Detectives and The Mysterious Human Heart educate in a way that Cable does not. Coming from a small town in Texas, I appeciate Great Performances for continuing to bring Dance, Music and Theatre to houses throughout underserved regions. And where would preschool education be without Sesame Street, not to mention the GED and Language programs created and broadcast throughout the country. It's hard to take the Times seriously when they call America's Ballroom Challenge a pop knockoff of cable's dance shows - PBS has been airing Ballroom dancing for decades. If only the Times took their responsibility for reporting and editorializing as seriously as Bill Moyers Journal, NOW, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Wide Angle, Frontline, or Expose. Maybe then we wouldn't all be asking whether the NYTimes is still necessary.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:56 PM	Tom Semones : I watch "The Newshour" every night. I think the journalism is excellent. I also get news from my local paper (Cincinnati Enquirer) and Newsweek.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:55 PM	Joanne : PBS is still important in today's world. The news division consisting of the News Hour, Washington Week in Review is a must for any "political junkie", where can you get unbias news?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:54 PM	John & Loyette Goodell : PBS has the best news coverage on TV. 80% of our TV viewing is on PBS. It has the best cultural and newscoverage of all the TV networks. We never miss Jim Lehrer and company.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:54 PM	David Davis : PBS, we love you warts and all, You restrict commercials to beginnings and endings with in interruptions. We like that. You sponsor Masterpiece Theatre, which we enjoy. You mostly show high quality documentaries. You support Bill Moyers and his interviews, as well as BBC News. However, you seem complacent and self-congratulatory re: the mission of PBS, which we agree should be educational but is sometimes superficial and trivial (e.g. Hollywood Sign Education on KVIE). You air musty English comedies out of vogue in England and mostly not funny. You replay Antiques Roadshow so much we never want to see another antique again and the predictable reaction of the antique owner who buys a Picasso at a garage sale for $5.00. You seem to have given Leher, Brooks, & Sheilds lifelong tenure; and you might invite better-qualified talking heads. Your cosmic Nova programs with Tyson (not boring) cover interesting material but give in to the lure of the spectacular: flashy graphics, strobe effects, and excessive jump cuts take precedence over information and education. Technology undercuts message. We appreciate your asking for public feedback! We hope the government will vastly increase funding for PBS. David H. Davis

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:52 PM	Bob & Marilyn : PBS tops all other sources for us. It provides balance in news and commentaries, choice in all facits of the arts, breadth of coverage (local/national/worldwide. It neither assaults our senses with obnoxious commercials nor imposes monthly charges that burden people on a fixed income. PBS is "with it." What would we do without it!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:52 PM	Bobbie : Cable TV can brag they also provide PBS-like shows and the NY Times can go along with this chest-beating, but don't overlook all the CRAP we have to endure to extract good programming on cable: Non-stop erectile disfunction ads (one night I counted one every 30 seconds on CNN), high-density male enhancement ads (choking high quantities on History International and the Military Channel), idiotic poker games on the so-called Travel Channel, useless infomercials on the so-called Hallmark Channel, game shows on the formerly CNBC business channel, and (my brother's pet peeve) you have to pay for cable and they still inundate you with commercials anyway. Add more to that --- there are more ads per program hour than ever, and that insensitive producers and executives have changed the rules on what PG ratings mean (so as to put the most outrageous behavior into prime time) making your V-chip or blocking useless. The new president and congress needs to look at PBS as the decent person's only salvation from the excesses of commercial media. Fund them more! Make PBS remove their 'extended underwriter credits' and get back on mission. But whatever you do, stop advancing the silly idea cable has given us good value. It lied to us in the 60s and 70s with the promise of giving us commercial-free TV. It is nothing but endless commercials, infomercials and misleading channel names (the Travel Channel doesn't program much 'travel'). It has not been a good bargain. As far as I'm concerned, everyone involved with television (cable, dish or broadcast) is failing us. PBS offers the closest thing to hope.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:49 PM	Ed Arnold : PBS is almost the only programming which is worth watching among the cable channels that we receive. The news is the best, newsmaker interviews are informative without undue emotion, and other programming is mostly very good. I do hope that the new administration and congress can join together to keep this unique asset operating at a high level.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:46 PM	m.brauman : there's nothing like the newshour,bill moyers journal, charley rose and the variouds sunday night series anywhere else on tv.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:39 PM	David Schlageter : It seems rather ironic when a printed publication labels PBS as irrelevant. Long term both will have to adapt to remain, as will cable TV. I just listened to last nights News Hour online. That’s pretty relevant! I agree with article when it makes reference to 30 second commercials, pledge drives and some of the programming (The recent show on my local PBS station about the English Royal family was viewer waterboarding, air the pledge drive during that program, then I would look forward to the break, “keep calling or we cut back to the show!”). Let’s hope there is a re-prioritization of public television in the following administration to mitigate the increasing reliance on alternate funding which leads to these criticisms. But consider PBS’s strengths, such as the news programming. I am not sure how long Cable News would survive compelled to secure funding with a pledge drive. The fact that PBS has, demonstrates a real value. The article fails to mention how much better PBS informs viewers when compared to the other Cable News. The call made by another influential quality news source should be to secure PBS, as excellent sources of information, not suggest substituting potentially biased cable newsertainment.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:38 PM	Karen : PBS is important because I feel that it is the only space on telivision were I can be assured that I will not have to watch violence for the sake of violence or watch reality shows which seem to have no real purpose.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:33 PM	Ed Lazarus : Allow me to paraphrase one of our greatest American heroes; "Give me PBS...or give me death!"

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:32 PM	John Donovan : I read the New York Times if I can. I always watch "The News Hour." If I were to pick one, the Times would lose. I am grateful to PBS for "The News Hour," "Bill Moyers Journal," "Frontline," "The American Experience," and "Nova."

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:32 PM	Diana Aubuchon : Yes, it is very necessary. I do not subscribe to cable. I getmost of my information from PBS shows and the local paper (Kansas City Star). After watching various PBS programs, I feel I am ready to discuss things with other people. I am aware of various points of view, not just a one-sided slant on one person's or network's view. I may not have the money that PBS deserves. But I have volunteered in the past and hope to do so again. Please keep it on the air.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:31 PM	RE Mant : It is difficult for me to argue with many of the points made here since I have long thought that public TV produced low IQ history and science shows, even when they were popular, such as the Ken Burns Civil War and WWII epics. Generally they make a mockery of the expertise of the experts they use, and lately they have been given to political correctness besides. In addition, public TV has taken to aping A&E, etc. running repeats about Nazis and the British royal family, sometimes even in the guise of history and science. Public stations not only run fund drives during school vacations when no one is around to contribute, especially in college towns, they insist on devaluing their normal educational programs by running Suze Orman and Deepak Chopra and other such garbage during them instead to make absolutely sure no one interested in quality TV will be watching. Though the many half-hour how-tos are among the most popular and well-done shows, they are demoted to odd times and used as filler, and between that and the constant fund drives it is impossible to follow, for instance, a complete series of This Old House. My local station also programs whole nights of the same thing in a sort-of marathon format, and often ends up running all the episodes of a single show in one night, from 8PM to well past most ppl's bedtime. And while many stations are supported by state educational institutions, many independent ones are obviously over-staffed and under-achievers, which does little to encourage contributions. I do not, however, think the solution is to pander, nor lose sight of the meaning of a public good. Nor do I think the age of Jim Lehrer or Bill Moyers has anything to do with it. I'd like to point out that Walter Cronkite was still respected at 75, and that our next president may well celebrate his 75th birthday in the White House. Some 40 years I took a course in education and was told that to be an effective teacher I needed to learn to tell jokes to relate to the students and keep their attention. I replied that what a teacher needed to do was to make the subject relevant to the students, or find a new one. I flunked that course and did not become a teacher. Education certainly hasn’t gotten any better in the interim, and I think public TV is an analogous case. The plain fact is that a lot publicly-produced shows in this country are awful. In fact not only education, but all public media have declined in the face of the effects of a marketing psychology such as my instructor advocated. Indeed all of our public institutions are in decline and under attack. It is what the Romans called "The Public Thing" that needs defense, and good education is the only way to do that. The present generation simply do not want to listen to, read or watch anyone, but opine for themselves, if only by punching a remote. Some may think that is normal social or consumer behavior, but I do not. Nor does much of the rest of the world. Those who think these things should be privatized, no doubt also think of them as private goods, not public ones. I do not think it will do to try to support either education or public media by what amounts to voluntary taxation. Advertising is after all an involuntary tax, and we may as well assert ourselves and support public broadcasting 100%. Reading between the lines I suspect some of this is what McGrath meant to say. That said, why someone who may never have owned a car, nor ever seen a prairie should libel two very fine programs, is about as honorable as that the patriotic sons and daughters of places where they have should have been sent to die in retribution for acts against a city, which thinks no more of them than it does of the ppl who removed two eyesores from their midst. Nor would the financial problems of this country be as bad.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:30 PM	BVH : I have been watching The News Hour since the early 1980s when it was The McNeill-Lehrer Report (sp?) (which is how I still refer to it most of the time). It is hands down the best news program on TV, and has been consistently since I started watching it. I also watch other PBS shows, but I consider The News Hour the PBS flagship. If PBS and/or The News Hour were to disappear from the scene, our culture would be poorer for it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:28 PM	ALT : If Mr. McGrath (Is PBS Still Necessary?) is serious about that question, he either must not have a TV, he must be a cable subscriber, or he must believe that reality TV is worth watching. As for myself, I find few major network TV shows worth watching. Most of NBC, CBS, and ABC shows are an insult to American intelligence. And an embarrassment. PBS provides viewers with a Window to the World (as PBS channel 11, Chicago, puts it) of ideas, countries, political systems, opinions, cultures, animals, ways of life, nature that are not found on the major networks any more. The News Hour is perhaps the only source of objective news left. Great care is taken to present all sides of any controversy or issue with thorough background research. And the opinions presented are intelligent and informed; they come from pundits, experts, thought-leaders - folks who have thoroughly studied, and, in some cases, lived, those issues. The News Hour's coverage is the fairest and most objective news coverage that can be found on TV. Shows like Bill Moyers' Journal, NOW, and Frontline are jewels. Nova, Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly, Masterpiece, WealthTrack (I could go on) provide a variety of information that is not to be found easily anywhere else but on PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:27 PM	John Clem : The NewsHour is essential viewing every weekday evening for my wife and me. This is the only place where we get our fix of in-depth news reporting. (Later we also watch local CBS news, mainly for the weather report. The rest is mostly fluff.) Another essential program we watch on PBS on Fridays is the Bill Moyers Journal. We find it always worth watching and thought-provoking. If we're out that evening, I tape it for viewing later.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:25 PM	John D. T. : I'm a 74 year old student. PBS has provided a cornucopia of information and entertainment on the visual arts, music, film, history, literature, politics, nature, religions, travel, and news that I seldom found time to study while obtaining a Ph.D. and during a career practising biomedical science. PBS enriches my life and those of countless others each day. It's a given that the programs will be first rate, reliable, well-rounded and presented by highly talented professionals who love their work. What more can viewers ask for? `

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:24 PM	Margaret : Yes, PBS is still necessary. Where does Charles McGrath get his cable service? Mine certainly does not offer "the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV." PBS is consistently thoughtful and informative and, unlike cable, available to viewers who don't have $50 every month to spend.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:22 PM	Lance : The article has hit a nerve. Sadly, the PBS program content is no longer gremane and seldom edgy. We need a more progressive PBS that can keep the public informed like no other medium.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:22 PM	J Kyle : Although I am happy to hear that NPR is doing so well (especially since my "donation" now goes to XM Radio so that I can continue to enjoy interviews by the incomparable Bob Edwards), I am sad to see such a simplistic analysis of PBS by the NYT. I join the chorus of voices that can fairly state that I might not own a TV if not for diversity, depth and excellence of the shows presented on PBS (especially since we can watch movies on our computer screens nowadays). I am also, with others, disappointed that the Times writer has assumed that cable TV provides any alternative for those who, by choice or by lack of means, have no exposure to pay TV options. I rely on the NewsHour in particular for balanced and thoughtful reporting on national and international issues; the only such comprehensive source that I find available on broadcast television today. We should absolutely continue to support the public-private partnership that is PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:19 PM	JHNH : The News Hour is the best on TV; and Friday night, with Washington Week, NOW, and Bill Moyer is the best of the best. WW is getting a little 'glitzy.' As for SHO and HBO, they are examples of America, the gated country. In their cases, the gate is money.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:18 PM	Jim and Carol : We rarely watch anything on TV which is not a PBS offering. We depend on PBS for unbiased reporting, wonderful specials like American Experience, Frontline, Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, the British police shows like Waking the Dead, the rare Ken Burns extravaganza, and occasional performance of live classical music and dance.Let's fight for funding for quality and uninterrupted programming.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:16 PM	Elise & Bob Bernard : Jim: We need and respect your News Hour and PBS. One of the few television channels worth watching and listening to. You are relevant and important; no ranting or raving - intelligent people are interviewed and your public can take it from there.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:11 PM	Ray Bieljeski : PBS is simply the most unbiased, informative and intelligent news program on television today.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:11 PM	jim mackey : the news hour is our one hope of getting the true story in a sea of spin...i hope it continues as a beacon of light in a dark place.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:08 PM	Vivian : I can't imagine even owning a television without PBS. I am a contributing member.I feel it is as impotant as voting.The Newshour is a must! It is informative and comprehensive. No one is yelling at me and there are no interruptions by animated mucus commercials.Many thanks to all of those who support and work for PBS and give all America a chance to enjoy such quality.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:08 PM	A. LAWRENCE : In the '60s when Channel 13 (public service) replaced Channel 13 (commercial)there was a need for that new kind of TV. But it wasn't as great as it is now. Back then the commercial networks all had documentary units, global coverage of news events each with its own reportorial staff, even classical music. Today, that's all gone except for PBS. Who, for instance is covering the NY Philharmonic appearance in North Korea? PBS! Where do you go for in-depth reports on science topics? PBS! Where do you go for theatre classics? PBS! Conclusion: The Public Broadcasting System is still viable and important. Important for those of us who want to think, learn and understand. We may be in the minority, but we are entitled to some attention.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:08 PM	judy of chicago : The News Hour is by far the best news program available. My favorite segment is Brooks and Shields; where else can you get two intelligent viewpoints where each person listens to the other person and where there is respect--and even humor--on both sides? PBS news is the only news source that I trust.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:02 PM	Ruth Schoenfeld : PBS is ABSOLUTELY relevant! Such regulars as the News Hour, NOVA, Frontline, Bill Moyers, Wide Angle, etc., are necessary, even more as newspapers and diversity among news sources shrink. Where else could we see Ken Burns, Masterpiece Theater, Charlie Rose, etc.? The list could go on, but my life would be grayer. duller, far less ionformed without PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:00 PM	John Powers : I never miss The News Hour and have done so for years and years, even though I am aware of the day's news from listening to NPR all day, I enjoy the depper look provided by TNH. But the program could use a little intropection. I think it needs less two headed interviews with learned professors and think tank experts, and more programs featuring writers and reporters like John Burns from Iraq, Steve Coll from Afghanistan, James Fallows from China, etc. Perhaps the budet doesn't allow such interviews, but perhaps you could solicit donations from The New Yorker, The Times, The Atlantic, or have a foundations provide a fund to compensate the participants. More activists and fewer theorists would enliven the News Hour no end.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:00 PM	Cherubino : I have been an avid PBS viewer my entire life--from Sesame Street as a child to Great Performances today. I would not be singing opera today were it not for WNET here in New York: seeing Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro" hooked me on opera for life! Yes, the quality of some of the programming has been compromised in the last decade. For example, Mystery and Masterpiece Theater seem to have become one entity now called Masterpiece. Much as I loved the first "Prime Suspect," I really don't view this murder-mystery series to be on a par with, say, "Pride and Prejudice." But I'm guessing that this was done with cost-cutting in mind, and that's the tragedy of public broadcasting in the US. It needs more money and support, not less. There is no other station or network that puts together the consistently high-quality news, art and science programming that PBS does--and still, more or less, commercial free! Its funding should be independent of political whims. Perhaps a portion of all the revenue from the sales of television sets should be earmarked for PBS, as I understand is done in Britain for their public television corporation. Or perhaps the NY Times could earmark a portion of its revenue to help PBS, in order to make amends following the publication of that ridiculous article.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:00 PM	Judith M. : So maybe PBS isn't perfect, but has the NYT been watching what attempts to pass for competition? Please. If Congress is trolling for victims of spending cuts, let them do it somewhere else.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:57 PM	Lynne Short : I would grieve for the rest of my life without Jim Lehrer and the Newshour's team of reporters, Charlie Rose, Frontline, the fabulous productions of Great Performances, the drama and thrills of Masterpiece/Mystery.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:56 PM	Ellie Heffernan : PBS is almost the only station we watch. It is such a joy to get the facts and to know when opinion is opinion as we do on the News Hour. Plus the fabulous art opportunities from symphonies to Broadway plays. America without PBS would show the world how much we have slipped as a meaningful culture in the world.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:49 PM	John and Robin : We respect Jim Lehrer and the News Hour Team. Both PBS and NPR are essential. Both merit our tax dollar support. A HAIKU for Jim: LOUD CHANGING SEASONS PROPER QUESTIONS HUMBLY ASKED THE FOG IS LIFTING

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:48 PM	Victor Revenko : The Newshour is very important to me. I watch it as often as possible usually by taping it for later viewing.It is the only news program I watch because of the quality of its programming and most important its objective reporting style.To paraphrase a recent quote, it is "eloquent but not empty".Its like a family to me. It is the best(nothwithstanding the NY Times which I do read)news source and commentary. It will always be relevant to me and is the main reasion why I contribute money to PBS

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:48 PM	Carol & Richard Johns : Is PBS Still Necessary? We strongly disagree with the picture Charles McGrath paints of PBS in his article Is PBS Still Necessary. The vast majority of PBS programming fills a void that radio never can, simply because it can bring us performances of the visual arts -- dance, theater, opera, classic cinema and other programs about art and nature, as well as children’s programming which require the visual. Even with its budgetary constraints PBS does an extraordinary job, and Mr. Mc Grath has to admit that it could do an even better job if it had a larger budget. Is it necessary? Absolutely! Where else would we get unbiased, well-informed news such as we see every night on the Lehrer News Hour, with its superb “cast” headed by Jim Lehrer who asks questions in a respectful, skillful manner. Mr. McGrath says that “At its best public television adds a little grace note to our lives…” as if he undermines the enormous value of “grace notes”. Our country is losing a great deal by undervaluing the arts – cutting art education in the schools, for example. The arts help us appreciate what is fine and good and beautiful in the world; they help soothe the pain we feel in seeing so much violence and discord; they help build a child’s self-esteem, patience and exposure to other cultures and beliefs. They help us admire others for their skills. And PBS brings all of that to people who otherwise may never be able to have it in their lives. Mr. McGrath seems to feel that PBS is “musty”. It probably won’t be long before the latest “trend” in entertainment, based on in- your-face attitude, violence, speed and loud noise will be out of date. On the other hand, good art, good journalism, and nature -- programs about subjects that educate and inspire -- will never go out of style.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:47 PM	Lyle Rosser : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer on PBS is the most intelligent, unbiased and informative news program on television.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:42 PM	Robert : I'm a 37 year old High school teacher and without pbs I wouldn't know my ABC's I'm the Seseme street generation and now my son watches it. As for myself I have now graduated to Frontline and Nova. Though there are many similar options out there now, none are of the quality that PBS produces, nor of the intelectual level. I love entertainment and I also love learning while being entertained but somtimes certain topics need to be presented without the entertainment value to be frank and honest. Thats what PBS provides that no other station does or can. Plus it's the only news left where I feel their main agenda isn't to make a profit. For that alone we need them as watchdogs.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:36 PM	Doris Walker : How can the New York Times even question the relevancy of PBS? It is one of the very few places where you can get intelligent reporting on an issue. It also provides venues for forms of entertainment not available on commercial TV and radio.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:36 PM	Chris of Boston : Just about every night I wath the news hour. I enjoy the thoughtful and thorough presentations. Last Monday I was home on a holiday, and watched the Today Show. Matt Lower was interviewing someone from the Government in regards to the beef recall. He was rude to the man, and cut off his answers to all the questions. this is what we get from all of the for profit news programs. When I taught Logic at a small private college, I always used the news hour as a great example of what a rational argument should look like. Yes, now more than ever we need the news hour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:35 PM	Pete & Lora : The News Hour is the only TV new program which devotes sufficient time to explore topics and present fair and unbiased analysis. The programming on PBS has helped to educate and enlighten individuals for years. It consists of special programs which help to enrich the lives of people of all ages. Our children were among the early viewers of Sesame Street and today watch Public Television and listen to National Public Radio to enrich their lives and expand their understanding of a multitude of topics. These programs do receive financial support from viewers like us, but must have additional funding to maintain the variety and quality of the programs that are shown. Where would the arts and cultural aspects of our live be without the additional outside support that is there to maintain them? PBS needs to be supported and not reduced in its funding. Pete and Lora

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:29 PM	Robert Witzeman : The News Hour with Jim Leher is the best program on TV. So what if he is 73. Does that mean that age 73 is no longer capable? Leher at 73 is worth two of any other commentators half his age. Also Masterpiece Theater is as excellent as it has always has been.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:28 PM	Achilles Avraamides : Without PBS my wife an I would probably not watch television. I find the news hour to be the only balanced and thorough presentation of the news of the day. It is amazing that one has to turn to Bill Moyer to find a sensible discussion of major issues that confront us when we should have been expecting to find them in every one of the Net work channels. Cable news has lost all objectivity and the ability to focus on what is important. If PBS is shut down the whole country will be poorer.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:22 PM	Sigmund : Sell the PBS stations and send proceeds to the taxpayers. Wish you all well but since we got satellite 10 years ago we have not supported PBS. Note:Junk mail soliciting $$$ still coming in) FYI--Was directed to this comment line from dcrtv.com.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:16 PM	Mike Strollo : I finally got around to reading the Times article yesterday. I can't believe that this newspaper that I really enjoy for so much information could contain such an article. Relevance, what can be more relevant then the outstanding programs on PBS. My wife and I faithfully watch the News Hour every night and it is the only news show that I would ever watch. The stories are presented in depth, not in sound bites. The stories are objective with proponents presenting both sides of any issues. The every day fare presented on the other multitude of channels is mostly JUNK. I am a teacher and I recommend PBS to my students and I have used some of the videos in my classes. If it is all about ratings then again we are all in trouble. As a teacher I have been worried for years about the dumbing down of America....perhaps we can speed this up by eliminating PBS. Shame on you NY Times. Mike Strollo

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:08 PM	Rhoda Clary : I get my television news from the Newshour with Jim Lehrer and the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I am grateful to have such exceptional sources of news, analysis and satire. I listen to NPR in the a.m. and watch the Colbert Report. I read the Times and several magazines. Other than taking swipes at the age of the Newshour and Jim Lehrer, the Times' writer is silent on how to improve the show. The writer doesn't reveal if he wants a change of format, subtance or both. Certainly, a younger host and the snappier format of the network and cable news would simply duplicate what is already available. But I want the thoughtful reporting, depth and analysis the Newshour provides. I want my news straight. I don't want to be entertained by television news, I have Jon Stewart's wry eye for that. I have one pet peeve about the Newshour: it is the "two views" format, when the interview is of individuals from competing interest groups on two sides of a hotly contested issue. The resulting piece is obvious and much to hot to watch. Sometimes the evenhandedness gets me down. Sometimes there really aren't two crediable sides, for example, on global warming. But I don't know the current FCC rules on fairness or the political calculations you must make. The short version of my views to Jim and the Newshour team: you've got a good thing going. Keep it up. Rhoda Clary

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:59 PM	George : PBS is most certainly relevant. My wife and I watch the News Hour every night - ususally the only thing we watch. The coverage of the news is excellent. Interviews are usually done with someone defending each point of view (not at all biased). There is nothing like it on commercial television. I can see why business may not like the News Hour. No commercials. Thanks and keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:57 PM	Kerry, 40's, CA : When I preface a comment to a friend "On McNeil/Lehrer last night..." they all know I mean what is now called the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. We've all been watching it that long. Please keep up the excellent work, digging deeper into the news and providing multiple points of view.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:57 PM	Hannah M. : Our family cannot imagine TV without PBS or a Newsworld without Jim Lehrer! THANKS PBS!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:51 PM	Jay Toor : It is interesting that the Times, which is losing readers and has reduced profits brings up this idea. I wonder why?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:50 PM	F. Spedding : Amen to all the complimentary comments. I'm now in a place where I don't get all the great programs I was used to seeing and I miss them! Where else can we get such excellent, balanced news and such quality documentaries, in addition to wonderful entertainment. Money cannot be better spent!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:50 PM	Ginny Davis : There are many people who rely on PBS for quality programming...not everyone has, can afford or wants cable and cable does not always have the quality of PBS. We still need television without commercials which was the promise of cable way back when.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:46 PM	Dr. and Mrs, William H Zink : PBS news is extremely necesary in informing the American public of all sides of the issues facing our world today, without it we feel our USA citizens are ill informed with the 1 minites new bits that most other station present. Thanks you PBS

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:44 PM	Tom Hess : To quote from the end of Charles McGrath''s NYT article: "At its best public television adds a little grace note to our lives, but public radio fills a void". Although I agree with McGrath that public radio in general and NPR in particular are outstanding, I would invert the statement... the void I feel is filled by the Newshour, BBC World News, Now, Bill Moyers Journal, McLaughlin Group, Washington Week, NOVA, Wired Science, This Old House, Antiques Roadshow, and a host of other offerings by national and local affiliates alike (WXXI Rochester is mine). By contrast, I am a radio listener for the most part only when in my car... a graceful note, to be sure, but not an entire symphony. Are there commercials on PBS? You bet... often the exact same video that's fed to the commercial networks. But the critical difference is that on PBS, once the show starts, there are no more commercials until it's over. Even the networks' "limited commercial interruption" news broadcasts still do interrupt the broadcast, just less often. So, I'll take musty ol' PBS anytime... a point that critics of PBS always forget about is the amount of outreach done by PBS affiliates to the benefit of their local audience, such as radio transcriptions of print media broadcasts for the blind or visually impaired, or multiple streams of on-demand programming, inc. high-definition video (yes, PBS was mandated by the federal gov't. to begin broadcasting in HD well before the pay networks). So, Mr. McGrath... are you getting the picture? There -are- a lot of people out here that LIKE PBS and aren't afraid or indifferent about saying so.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:42 PM	J. Terni : PBS is more necessary than most people realize. The standards of excellence and objectivity that are the mission of so much PBS programming (and this is so because it is publicly funded. Were PBS to disappear, I suspect that commercial media in this country would become even more debased that it already is because it subtly sets the standard for excellence, especially in reporting, news, and documentaries of all kind. It alone of the major networks creates programming aimed at an attention span that is assumed to be longer than 3 minutes and might even be imagined as many hours long (Ken Burns' illuminating series on WWII comes to mind). I believe that in subtle ways PBS has an impact on the quality of our public discourse. It is amazing to me that we confuse the rationales of quality program with commercial viability. We seem to expect quality from certain public institutions like our schools; why should we expect less from media and entertainment, which in some ways have a far more enduring impact on our lives? While I am no enemy to commercial entertainment or to business in general, there are many things we do need very much that are not in fact that profitable to provide (health-care and education are both excellent examples). Finally, for those who would reason based purely on commercial rationales, doesn't the fact that the people who watch PBS are willing to pay for it make its own argument about its perceived relevance?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:42 PM	khyot crow : Any attempt to reduce funding for public television must be stopped for the public's common good. Commercial broadcast entities fail miserably to meet any standards of fairness, balance, or responsibility. The airways are part of the public domain, but the control of the airways has been yielded to the insensitive greed of commercial interests who oppose anything that might reveal their manipulative domination.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:37 PM	J. Terni : PBS is more necessary than most people realize. The standards of excellence and objectivity that are the mission of so much PBS programming (and this is so because it is publicly funded. Were PBS to disappear, I suspect that commercial media in this country would become even more debased that it already is because it subtly sets the standard for excellence, especially in reporting, news, and documentaries of all kind. It alone of the major networks creates programming aimed at an attention span that is assumed to be longer than 3 minutes and might even be imagined as many hours long (Ken Burns' illuminating series on WWII comes to mind). I believe that in subtle ways PBS has an impact on the quality of our public discourse. It is amazing to me that we confuse the rationales of quality program with commercial viability. We seem to expect quality from certain public institutions like our schools; why should we expect less from media and entertainment, which in some ways have a far more enduring impact on our lives? While I am no enemy to commercial entertainment or to business in general, there are many things we do need very much that are not in fact that profitable to provide (health-care and education are both excellent examples). Finally, for those who would reason based purely on commercial rationales, doesn't the fact that the people who watch PBS are willing to pay for it make its own argument about its perceived relevance?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:36 PM	Linda P. : The News Hour has been a consistent part of my life for many years. It is the only place I can count on to receive impartial analysis of "what's going on". I appreciate their fine reporting team...the best there is. By consistently having several sides of the issues reported, I am encouraged to think outside my normal "box". I count on Jim Lehrer & his team to be there every night to keep me ontop of the world. Thanks PBS !!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:31 PM	Miriam Berry : Each day we look forward to the News Hour, recognizing it as the stable calm center of our world view. Without flash or trash, we are presented with both sides of issues. It is a most relevant highlight of our day and we would be devastated without PBS in all of its programming.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:31 PM	Ruth Gottlieb : P PBS is an important source of in depth information on timely, important topics. It is critically important that funding by the federal government be continued. The country cannot afford to lose PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:31 PM	Judith Adams : I don't know what I'd do without PBS. Almost on a weekly basis, I watch something that I say to my husband, "Where else could we have seen this?" In fact, I don't watch much else on TV. My husband likes to channel surf, but I just keep it on 13 or 21 all the time and always find something interesting or informative or fun to watch. It really was depressing to read the Times article. I wish our lawmakers could divert a tiny portion of what they allocate to killing to the few public TV & radio stations still around. We donate as much as we can, but I wish it could be more!!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:30 PM	maria de sousa : For professional reasons I travel a lot between New York and Portugal. Practically my only TV station in NYC is THirteen I am a member, a supporter and all that.I recently discovered access to PBS in Portugal. The difference between having PBS and not having is survival of the most precious in a human mind and of continuous education of a citizen:independent information and intelligent discussion of info; good laughs (with Appearances); looking forward every night to 11pm to delight and learn with Charlie Rose's interviews,etc. I have stayed up very late in Europe on Fridays just to hear what Shields and Brooks have to say. To imagine that PBS is not necessary is unimaginable, not just in the US, but with the online access, even more so,outside the US. maria de Sousa,scientist A comment of Alain Carpentier to CR comes to mind: I treated you, God saved you. Well we can write, but perhaps God can save us.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:28 PM	Laura Burroughs : The article suggested that cable programing has made PBS redundant. What should people do who cannot afford cable and do not care for the current schedule of shows on the other networks? Is the next step to issue vouchers to those who cannot pay for cable?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:27 PM	toby : Of the few stations left that are worthwhile watching, the PBS channels excel. Jim Lehrer is a regular part of my evening news schedule as he is so objective. The other channels lean to the right or left politically, but Jim does the news just right. It is also a great relief not to have to listen to the continuous cacaphony of commercials. Frontline, Nova, American Experience, The Civil War, etc. are superb programs. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:20 PM	Susan Close : PBS is absoultely positively necessary! If we didn't have the NewHour, how would we get both sides of a story? Network news is very disappointing anymore because they must cater to their sponsors, there are too many commercials and frequent 'news stories" that are prepared propaganda. The NewsHour caters to 'us'. There is not conflict of interest going on. Jim makes sure his in depth topics are the ones we are interested in. Also, Frontline, Now, Bill Moyers, and Wide Angle are so EXTEMELY important because they offer unfilered news that would never be shown on commercial TV. PBS is revelant now more than ever before!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:14 PM	Alan Semet : The News Hour is the only place to get a detailed and balanced view of a news story without being disrupted by comercial distractions. I think the NY Times article was quite unfortunate and hardly worthy of that paper I think the shows put on by PBS are mostly head and shoulders above the vast majority of the stuff put on the commercial stations.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:14 PM	ASH : PBS is the only place that we find something to watch. We want intellectually stimulating material, well presented, fairly. There is no other source on television at this time.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:12 PM	Nancy Strapp : I cannot imagine life without PBS. Without it, I would not bother to own a television. The programs are of top notch quality: well researched, informative, mind-broadening, educational, and, in the case of the arts, absorbing and delightful. Our country needs this excellent defense against the encroaching "dumbing down" of our culture! PBS is wonderful and necessary!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:12 PM	Scott : If letting PBS go away so we can make a tiny dent reduction in the huge Federal Budget deficits, reduce our risk of social security benefits going away, or not increase my taxes... I say let's look at the bigger needs of the Public and find another way besides raiding valuable tax dollars and Government subsidies to pay for PBS. I don't want PBS to go away. I watch PBS everyday. Other cable stations hardly at all. But let's realize that these "entitlements" (like PBS) are taking away from other important programs that need to be paid for as well. Are we going to cling to everything without finding realistic ways to reduce our National debt and tax burden.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:11 PM	Ruth Anne : Our family doesn't subscribe to cable. NOVA is one of my 11 year old son's favorite shows. We don't have access to anything else like it on commercial broadcast television. And the broadcast news programs are nowhere near as informative as NewHour, FrontLine and other news programing. Quality History, Science, News and Children's programs may be available on cable, but they aren't on broadcast. Please don't forget that (last I heard) approximately 20% of households don't have cable -- that's a lot of people. We need PBS!!! Whatever happened to the idea that the public airwaves need to serve the public interest, and not just commercial interests?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:09 PM	John S : PBS and especially its news related programs are my lifeline to the real world. Fair, balanced as time permits, thoughtful, and viewer friendly, the programs of PBS are the only sources of information and thought-provoking public dialogue on TV. I don't have access to the New York Times-except through the local library (Sunday Edition)- but PBS serves us well in the "heartland." Keep it and increase the funding to encourage production of programs by the PBS people! I'm not fond of ballroom dancing or some of the other shows on the network; however, I am aware of other people who do enjoy them. Its a simple matter to pick and choose and enjoy my favorites while others can do the same. PBS is the ONE BRIGHT SPOT on our TV viewing schedule. As many respondents affirmed it is a national treasure that must be kept viable and growing.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:08 PM	Jonathan : PBS is absolutely essential in today's media environment. I often lament that things like ESPN get gobbled up by big media, have contracts to show baseball, and then attempt to present an objective piece about steriods in baseball--its a pure conflict of interest. Only PBS is free of these conflicts.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:06 PM	Bill Middlebrook : The nightly news hour with Jim Leher is the most comprehensive news broadcast on the air today, without the bias that network news present. Leave PBS alone!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:05 PM	Umakant Gajjewar : I am impressed by the un-matched quality of PBS programmes like Frontline, Nova, New Hour etc. PBS is still necessary at my house. I do not take commercial TV news too seriously, since they make it more like entertainment, and do not cover issues that are really important for public. They want to show what serves corporate interests. I am not much interested in listening, on commercial TV, to rich people trying to get richer by endlessly trying to sell me more stuff I don't need. I prefer PBS to CNN/FOX news as entertainment and a diversion between advertisements. I regret the entrance of commercialism into PBS but at least it's contained to the interval between shows. I hope it will remain that way. If PBS were nothing more than the current Bill Moyers Journal, NewsHour, and Frontline it would still be worth more than commercial TV.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:05 PM	claudia : Without PBS, television is indeed the vast wasteland that was described decades ago. It's increasingly the only thing worth watching, especially in its fairly balanced Newshour. Thank goodness for Bill Moyers, NOW, Frontline, Nova and the rest of the programming including Nature. And where else do we find any of the arts but at PBS. Yes, we need even more of PBS and perhaps the next Administration will restore the funding that the Republicans have loved to cut.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:03 PM	Ramon Martinelli : The News Hour is to us the best, fairest, and most complete news coverage on TV. Nowhere on TV is there anything remotely close. It's a pleasure to listen to rational folks discuss current events in some detail. The other programs, such as Nova, Masterpiece, the BBC sitcoms, and the documentaries are unique, and we would miss them should PBS disappear. PBS should be publically supported, so that it does not have to spend large amounts of time asking for contributions.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:59 PM	mimi : I am nearly 50 and have been a consistent viewer of PBS since I was a teenager. Unfortunately, the Times article does make a good point: PBS ain't what it use to be. I still remember artful dramas on Masterpiece Theater and riveting programs on Mystery. Perhaps, rather than reruning the same tired programs mentioned in the article, PBS could go into their vault and pull out some of the old gems from Masterpiece and Mystery (I would love to see "George Sand", Balzac's "Therese Raquine", and "I Claudias" again). "Frontline" doesn't produce the variety and breadth of programming that it use to. However, despite the fact that Charlie Rose interepts talks too much, I am a regular watcher and a big fan. And, I don't know what I would do without the Newshour. I am a devout and daily watcher, and have been for many years. The discourse is informative and civilized, and I learn something each day. In closing, Jim Lehrer looks fantastic for 73!! Keep up the extraordinary work!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:58 PM	Maria : After reading the New York Times article I'm angered but actually not surprised that the powers that be would criticize and undermine the only intelligent worthwhile programming on TV - which is PBS and all the shows they offer. The problem, as I see it, America as lost it's soul...as far as the News Hour goes....it's the only balanced, thoughtful and creative news available and the only news I watch....and to take a low blow at Jim Lehrer is inexcusable! The creativity, thought, and caring that goes into PBS programming is unavailable anywhere...maybe more people need to take the time to pay attention.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:57 PM	PlowSF : My colleague, a 24 year old intern - she is also a Dutch/US dual citizen - watches the Newshour. My 85 year old neighbor watches the Newshour. My 11 year old child enjoys Nature and NOVA, recently choosing to watch NOVA instead of a Peter Sellers movie offered as an alternative. The NYT wonders if the Newshour team is relevant only to folks in assisted living - far from it! I began watching in college and still do today. Frontline, Bill Moyers, the NewsHour, NOVA, Quest (KQED in SF production), Masterpiece, Nature are all scheduled to record as season passes in our DVR because we can't do without them. 75% or more of our time spent with television is spent on PBS. Superior product with great value to us personally, to my fellow citizens and to the democracy I hold dear. Keep up the good work and I'll continue my monthly support for KQED. My regard for the NYT has fallen dramatically. Next online survey they pop-up for me will be completed fully - and I WILL NOT click on any of their advertisers until I hear word of that they have revisited this issue with a reply to the thousands who have taken time to respond to their foolishness.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:52 PM	Seymour : Those who think PBS is unbiased are livinbg a dream. Their "news" is carefully chosen to reflect their own political views. Example: the recent hit piece by the New York Times, which PBS featured at the top of the program. I watch PBS often, but only the culteral programs. I am appalled that my tax money goes in part to finance a political effort with wich I am avidly opposed. PBS should be limited to music, art and science. They should keep their political views to themselves or get off the air. At least they should support themselves, rather than accept tax subsidies from those who disagree with them.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:50 PM	Rev. Stephen Washburn : The NEWSHOUR and WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW are must viewing for me. Nowhere else can I experience such thoughtful, incisive, balanced, trustworthy and humane journalism. Offerings on cable television waste my time, which for a pastor is precious. Even more than reading my NEW YORK TIMES, I make time for THE NEWSHOUR and WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW. The AMERICAN EXPERIENCE and FRONTLINE would be my next priorities for viewing, but I see them only occasionally. My spouse is a regular viewer of MASTERPIECE. I appreciate the experience, vitality, commitment to seeking truth and humane concern that Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill, Margaret Warner, Judy Woodruff, Ray Suarez and associates bring to the NEWSHOUR. For example, I shall never forget one broadcast when Margaret Warner had a particularly gruesome story to anchor, she briefly teared up without losing composure. I have always respected her for this sign of clear humane concern. Without the pressure to do soundbites or the hyped style of other television broadcasters, the NEWSHOUR and WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW provide unmatched depth of reporting when viewed regularly. Specifically, the freedom to report without distraction allow viewers to assess a fuller range of the reporters and the reported. Such evaluation is essential for viewers to form trustworthy views of current issues in these decisive days. As journalism evolves with the rise of cable and the internet, please accept my heart-felt thanks to the NEWSHOUR and WASHINGTON WEEK teams including retired co-founder Robert MacNeil for continuing to make highest quality journalism available on the air. What you offer is even more essential to our nation's democracy now than when your programs began.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:48 PM	Jill Janow : The Newshour is the most valuable broadcast of any kind that I have found. I find it invaluable to see and hear the best spokespeople for ideas and issues. Not only does the Newshour inform me but I learn how to be most effective in making my own claims and, in fact, learn about how to think in both the near and long term. The Newshour's personnel are the finest public examples of perceptive questioning and of a balanced search for wisdom. I would like to see the Newshour expand. Many other programs on PBS have been and are extremely valuable as well. I have recently starting watching and listening to the Charlie Rose show and find it to be a sea of thoughtfulness as opposed to the tempests in teapots that are swamping people's attentions. I find a form of richness that money alone cannot buy on PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:48 PM	john sonneland : It is inappropriate, perhaps tragic, that a respected newspaper would target the necessity of the single, comprehensive televised news source in the world. Wishing Jim Leher and his superb staff long,long life.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:47 PM	Rose Jetter : I listen to PBS every night. I donot miss the News hour, washinton Week., the Now Program,Biil Moyers. Frontline,Nova, Great Performances,Nature. the movie on now on Satirday night. Your programs are very importamt in my life.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:45 PM	Geo. Gerard : PBS provides balance in reporting news, science & politics (including British news for a different perspective) as well as the Nightly Business Report which I value. One gets British dramatizations of books & plays not available on commercial stations. The New York times has turned into a "rag", having violated its Masthead! It and the ACLU are two of the most socially destructive elements in the U.S., always, however, making due allowance for Hollywood's products -- both celluloid and physical bodies. About the only times I watch com'l. TV are those filming a catastrophe! Jim Lehrer & Robert MacNeil really started something worthwhile! I worry about how Jim will be replaced, but he has some up and coming assistants. Encouragingly, Geo. Gerard, Inglewood, CA

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:44 PM	Aron : As a 23 year old graduate student, I am a devoted Newshour viewer, and enthusiastically recommend it to everyone around me for its depth of analysis that is not reduced to sound bites. It is rare to find solid, reliable, and balanced reporting that is not overblown with glitzy and frankly annoying animations. PBS has my full moral and financial backing. Many thanks.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:43 PM	Jack Mooney : Having followed PBS to Florida(WEDU),Massachusetts (WGBH) and now back to the Metro New York Area (WNET)during the last five years,my wife and I have found that it is the only system worth watching on a regular basis. Very seldom do the other channels including the cable offerings seem to offer any worth while programming. Even the History Channel breaks for so many commercials,It loses its appeal. Nothing offered even comes close to the quality of the News Hour, Washington Week in Review, NOW and Bill Moyers Journal. I think NPR is great but when I want to see excellent TV programming PBS is the place I turn to. We rarely miss the News Hour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:41 PM	Alice Allured : I was astonished at Charles McGrath's assessment of PBS, and most especially with his criticism of the News Hour. This, the finest of all TV news programs, is an hour-long, thoughtful, calm, in-depth presentation of the national and world news, giving both sides of controversies as well as on-the-spot analyses by the world's finest reporters and most knowledgable people, and all without commercial interruptions. As to the "regulars" - Jim Lehr, Gwen Ifill, Ray Suarez, Judy Woodruff, Shields and Brooks, etc. - there is no finer team on television, in my estimation. All the PBS news programs, including Washington Week, David Brancaccio, Bill Moyers Journal and Charlie Rose are without peer. It is a baseless argument that DVDs and cable easily replace the other programming on PBS. Not everyone can afford cable and DVDs - nor would worthwhile substitutes for PBS programming be found within two hundred or even three hundred cable stations. In my experience, the more stations, the more junk! I hope our government does not make yet another big mistake and reduce or cancel funding for PBS. PBS deserves more funding, not less.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:38 PM	Ruth : Without Jim Lehrer news Hour I don't know where I could get unbiased news. The panel format works. A guests opinion is balanced by anothers opinion. Lack of advertising breaks make it possible for the viewer to absorb and think about the news and opinions. Of course PBS other news programming is also substantive.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:38 PM	C. Ramsey : Thank you for PBS and the quality shows they provide. The News Hour is my primary tv news show. It provides the news in detail without being "dumbed-down". As a busy mother I require the accuracy and quality that News Hour provides. If I don't know the important world events, how can I help teach my children? I am extremely thankful that I have PBS if my family wants to watch TV. My children just wish some of the shows came on earlier before their bedtime, i.e. Nature or Nova. My older child even hums the News Hour song! Thanks PBS! Keep up the great work!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:37 PM	RENEE AND SAM STAHLMAN : My husband and I watch News Hour every night. How dare the times think that this program isn't necessary. WE couldn't do without it. Matter of fact we watch most all the programs on channel 13. The News Hour is by far the most important one.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:36 PM	Mary Hrachovec : If we didn't have public television we mine as well throw the T.V. out. My grandchildren are only allowed to watch children's programs on PBS because the violent cartoons that air on local T.V. are not appropriate for them to watch. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer supercedes all of the rest of the News programs because it give objective analysis on all sides. Bill Moyers Journal, NOW with David Brancaccio, and Washington Week in Review with Gwen Ifill gives us the oppoprtunity to think objectively as well. We have classical music programs that are available only through PBS and cannot be viewed anywhere else. It looks like PBS is giving too much competition to local television and that is a good thing. The New York Times asks if PBS is Relevant? ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:32 PM	MaryLou Gazay : We subscribe to pbs and rely on the station for a fair and unbiased look at news as well as at other offerings. I think the Times needs to refocus on important things and leave pbs and silly stories like the new John McCain story alone (No, I am not supporting him.); it cheapens journalism.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:31 PM	Mary : I value PBS more than I can say as my lifelife to educational television, the arts, and to in-depth, balanced news reporting. If I were permitted only one television channel for the rest of my life, I would choose PBS without hesitation. You're the standard to which all others should aspire. Thank you, thank you.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:30 PM	Linda Ritzenberg : The NEWS HOUR on PBS is our daily education on the important events of the day. The "Newsmaker" interview format with 'those in the news' provides a unique opportunity for civil discussion and debate. It is a unique program that encourages the public to hear varied points of view expressed. The News Hour is a true, essential public service.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:25 PM	Elizabeth Hicks : In contrast to commercial drivel, The News Hour's mood is always civil. Bill Moyers, Lehrer and Gwen Ifill Make watching news shows quite delightfill. To close in language Ogden Nashian, These topnotch programs are my pashion. How could we ever acquiesce To TV without PBS?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:25 PM	Georgia Mattingly : To the question, "Is PBS Still Necessary," I would have to answer with a resounding YES! For our household, PBS television and radio are 99% of our viewing and listening on a daily basis. We highly value the wide variety and brilliant quality of the programs offerred on PBS. Watching The Newshour, Democracy Now, BBC News, NOW, and Bill Moyer's Journal keeps provides us with in depth analysis of the news which we can't find anywhere else. For the past year and a half we've been enjoying the re-runs of our favorite all time TV drama, Northern Exposure. We also love some of old time movies, and specials, like Ken Burns "The War." Then there are the great variety of programs such as "Frontline," "Nova," "American Experience," and the wonderous Nature documentaries, which we find so enriching. We don't have young children at home, but every now and then I take a peak, and feel so grateful that this quality of TV is available to the youth of our country. Please, know that I think every dollar spent on PBS TV and radio is worth it. It's like continuing education for our citizens.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:24 PM	Elinor Miller : YouTube is now presenting MIT Professors on line; but for those of us who want the same calibre of information on TV, PBS' news shows have no peer as far as this policy wonk is concerned. I love it, and would be lost without it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:22 PM	Mark and Holly Smith : In an era of increasing commercialization and polarizing news, independent programing is more important than ever. Jim and his team rock!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:22 PM	dolores whitfield : All pbs shows are my haven from the stupid commercials that saturate the other tv stations. I have made contributions to Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyers et.al. when I could afford it on my limited income as a senior citizen. Your program has provided the education that my parents could not afford during the depression. PLEASE DON'T LET SOME STUPID NEWS PAPER TAKE YOU OFF THE AIR! I would say the New York Times is irrelevant. Would also like to suggest that you re-run some of the old movies that I saw when I first started watching PBS, i.e. Dr. Calligories Cabinet, M (with Peter Lorie) that's just to let you know how long I have been watching you. Long before I bacame a senior citizen. Love all of you on PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:21 PM	Ruth Ann Carter : For some time, I've felt the NYT's quality has declined, but thought I'd subscribe anyhow. When I read its "Is PBS Still Necessary?" I knew it wasn't worth it. I watch Jim Lehrer's NewsHour every night; and Frontline, Nova, Bill Moyers' Journal, Washington Week, Now, Masterpiece Theater, Nature, Globe Trekker, American Experience, Great Performances, Charlie Rose, Are You Being Served and Hyacinth when they're on. I am so grateful that there is a PBS and contribute all I can.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:20 PM	George Mitchell North Hero, Vt. : PBS is the ruby in a bucket of cut glass.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:20 PM	Richard Lillquist : I can't believe that the venerable New York Times would want to muse on the relevancy/irrelevancy of PBS. Any thinking person knows that without PBS, and particularly the NEWSHOUR and NOW and FRONTLINE, we would be disasterously in the dark, without a clue, and at the mercy of ignorance. Oftentimes I've said to my friend, while watching one of those programs, "Do you see any other news program address that issue, or those issues?" No, only on PBS! And without that option, we would be terribly less informed on what's going around us, and therefore way less able to make informed decisions. Informed decisions are the life blood of living in a democratic society. Without that ability we are lost. And the incredible pressures of a capitalistic society pull us away from thoughtful reasoning. No, there is no question as to the absolute relevancy of public television. It is an island in the middle of noisy commercial television, and as I've also said, we pay way too much for "free" television in terms of being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. One last huzzah for Brooks and Shields. I so look forward to their moments on Friday's NEWSHOUR. It is so refreshing to see two commentators who really respect each other engage in a civil discussion of the issues. What a relief from cable!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:19 PM	Voltaire : I find this question rather rhetorical as the answer is quite obvious. The very fact that the NYTimes posts this indicates to me that they do not really show any semblance of news like is shown on PBS. To do anything short of what Bill Moyers is doing with "NOW" and his pod casts are in my opinion a disservice to the American people. It should not be considered anything special as all news should be as researched and as impartial as what I have seen and heard on pbs but that is simply not the case. The very fact that the publically available, but rarely publicized hearings of the Congressional Oversight committee run by Henry Waxman has in my memory never been on a front page, is a very good indication that your news has been hijacked by a select few private interests in United States. Also if you look at the "editorial" picks of the NYTimes comments to this article they do not at all correspond to the people who most recommended the comments. This is yet another indication of special interests be it from a individual or an organization at play. In 2003, the florida supreme court ruled that news organizations have no legal obligation to even try to tell the truth (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html). That being the case, no news organization today can be held accountable for lying. I contend, then, that none of those organizations should be allowed to call the information the post as "news" because they are not accountable. The only source of information today that I've seen that honestly, logically and impartially attempts to demonstrate the fairness and democracy on which our country was founded, is PBS. Given the above information, what other conclusion can be made about this other than "YES"?!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:19 PM	Juliana : PBS is the only intelligent source of news on television. Cable has not lived up to its promise, and its news is usually a continual cycle of sound bytes and blather. I have not and will not subscribe to it. PBS has produced consistent, high quality journalism, and I would grieve to lose it. It would be a loss to our nation. I have been a supporter all my adult life. As a teacher, I urge my adolescent students to watch it, and we have used many of the stories and essays as sources of critical analysis of our(their) world. PBS news is essential. Period. PS: My elderly friend, Vera, who is ill and unable to access the Internet, asked me to add her voice to mine in proclaiming the importance of PBS programming and, in particular, the News Hour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:18 PM	Pat Federighe : PBS News is more important than ever. Where else can one find a balanced, uncensored news report that isn't a carbon copy of every other news report. My second choice would be BBC on npr. My third would be CBC with Peter Mansbridge. Without these wonderful sources of information, I would feel totally uninformed.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:18 PM	Anne Sennish : Remove the Republicans from the PBS leadership, restore the funds that have been drained away under the GOP noise machine, and we'll have the best of public TV again. Especially now, with hard times staring us in the face, and more and more viewers unable to afford cable. Not that I find public TV all that unappealing now; other than local news, it's the only thing we watch at our house.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:18 PM	Gratia Williams : Certain programs on PBS, most notably the NewsHour, are indispensable to my consciousness. Mr. Lehrer and his brilliant colleagues, who are formidable in their skill to be articulate when discussing a diverse range of issues, are peerless. I do, however, agree with the comment in the Times article that some substandard shows have crept into PBS programming; I hope these can be eliminated and the truly great programs like the NewsHour, Nova, Bill Moyers Journal, Masterpiece, American Experience, etc. will continue to flourish for generations to come.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:17 PM	bosoxsue : That NYT article annoyed me on a variety of levels. I found the "assisted living" remark regarding NewsHour to be in very poor taste. I have respect for my elderly relatives who use assisted living and only hope that I have the good fortune to be as mentally sharp as them if I live that long. "NewsHour" is the only news show I care to watch. It has been dubbed "Smart News" by my 7-year-old and the name has caught on with us and her 5- and 3-year-old siblings (as in, "shhhh ... don't bother Mommy; she's watching Smart News." Friday's show, especially, is a soothing end to a hectic week of a working mother who tries her damnest to stay in tune with the world beyond PTO and homework. The politely articulated insights of Shields and Brooks (is it OK to confess to having an intellectual crush on him?) are a welcome change from the grating noise that goes on at the cable alternatives that the NYT writer thinks would suffice. I have enough bickering and yelling over each other among my young kids.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:16 PM	Patricia Glover Lee Fougere : I cannot imagine living without PBS or the News Hour. I think something has gone awry with the NY TIMES editorial board of late. They seem to becoming a negative force, and I cannot understand why this is so. We support and continue to support all aspects of PBS and it is part of the "dumbing down of America" for such a newspaper as the NY TIMES to think any differently. Patricia Lee Glover Fougere Salem, MA

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:16 PM	Bess & Jim : Choosing not to subscribe to cable, we value the content on both public television and radio and consider our tax dollars better spent in this endeavor than some of the other questionable expenditures of our government.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:16 PM	Frank : Endorsing many previous comments, the News Hour has been the only trusted source of news for our family for many years. It's so sad that the local stations remain fixated on murders, molestings, crime and accidents. In addition, other programming on PBS is precious ant I am convinced that the documentaries now seen on other channels would not maintain any sort of standards if not held to account by the PBS model, which remains in place. Do not allow this to be taken from us!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:15 PM	Marty Topel : Is PBS necessary? More than ever before as the majority of television continues to deteriorate. I can't imagine that it would even be a point of discussion. What would we do without the Newshour with its indepth news presentations? The American Experience has such beautiful, interesting depictions of our history and the Antique Roadshow is so much fun. Where would we be able to get productions such as Masterpiece Theatre and have the brutal truth that Frontline presents? Especially with this being an election year, we spend all Friday evening watching the Newshour, Gwen Ifill all the way through Bill Moyers. We so value these informative, insightful, entertaining programs. I'm so concerned for our country as it is. Most of television programming is so trivial and senseless. Even the thought that PBS wouldn't be there to counter it so upsets me.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:14 PM	Carolyn H. : I am a visually handicapped person who relies almost totally on NPR for news and information. The only exception I make is PBS programming-The News Hour, Nova, Frontline, Bill Moyers all add immeasurably to my connection with society both at home and with the rest of the world - the world of ideas. My lifeline! I may not be able to see-but the dialog is always informative, intelligible and balanced. Thank you PBS and NPR.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:12 PM	Mary : I watch Bill Moyers, Now and the News Hour faithfully and I mean watch and listen. Often while watching other networks and programs I have a book or the newspaper in my hand and half watch and listen. Not with those three programs and I learn so much. And blessedly no one is screaming at another person on the panel or one panelist is not taking cheap shots at another. This week I watched "Rules of Engagement" on Frontline. It was tough to watch but having heard an interview on NPR about the program the previous weekend I knew I needed to watch it. I cannot tell you how upset I was when someone called me with about 5 minutes to go and it was a call I had to take. I would rather my tax dollars were spent on PBS and NPR than on the war in Iraq or for bridges to nowhere. By the way, has some alien being taken over the New York Times? Keep up the good work and you can count on me to lobby for more money for PBS Many, many thanks to everyone at PBS.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:11 PM	Janet Michael : We are beseiged by sound bytes we need to hear careful, indepth reporting and disucsisons. we listen to the News Hour as we would to a symphony rather then smiply to the first to measures of the piece. keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:10 PM	Dilys E. Morris : I am a regular viewer of PBS and find it an important part of being an informed citizen. I listen to the News Hour every night we are home. Washington Week in Review is a great program. I only wish it were an hour long. Moyers is fantastic. I respect and appreciate the way various sides of an issue are presented in all news programs. I like it that reporters are not gleeful when reporting political news. Since Cable and the Broadcast News have become more and more entertainment and sensationalism, I have discontinued viewing them. I once did. Any evening that I want to watch a TV program, I can normally find something appealing on PBS. I watch no TV stations for their programs and only watch Cable for movies that I like on the one TV channel we receive with basic cable. Masterpiece is my favorite entertainment program.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:10 PM	Ray Kling : There are a very few places where one can get news, accurate news, not biased by the conservative bent in the Media, these days. The place where my wife and I get this information is NPR, and PBS. Today, news outlets provide foo-foo, more "dumbing-down" of America; junk-items that appeal to the same group that makes-up the "Simpson's," and "Survivior" watching groups, IE. FOX There seems to be the same push on, that the Bush Administration attemped, to quash Public Radio, along with any opposition to descent to the conservative way of thinking. We rely on PBS, and NPR exclusivly for our news. Keep up the good work! Ray and Lucie Kling Keller, Texas

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:09 PM	phyllis doyle pepe : Charlie Rose alone is worth watching PBS along with The Newshour. American Experience, Frontline, Nature, Masterpiece Theatre, This Old House, Bill Moyer's Journal, ��need I go on? Some of us like quality!!!!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:09 PM	h. c. petley : PBS is the nation's biggest panhandler! And you never stop begging for more. Give $20 you want $40, give you $100 you ask for $125 more.ENUF! You have a parade of pretigious donors, multimillionaires and billionaires plus numerous billion dollar corps getting their logos displayed and yet you still have your hand out constantly begging for more "support"from working people. And how much do you spend annually to subsidize the BBC buying their left over trash? What a scam! Your donor, Chevron regularly claims that they supply "over 7 million homes" with electricity derived by DIRECTLY TAPPING A MAGMA SOURCE. This is a fraud which you enable. Where is this magma source that Chevron's graphic shows them directly connected to? Where are the 7 million homes? Industry standards say 1 megawatt powers 1,000 homes, therefore they must generate 7,000mws from this magma souce to power 7million homes. This claim is fraudulent and your reporters should know this, do know this, and yet you allow, enAble Chevron to make thus deceptive claim. Where is the magma sourcre that they are directly tapping, where are the 7 million homes? Wake up Jim L! You are being used every day to push this phony "green claim".

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:08 PM	Steven : Network news is extraodinarily shallow, frequently biased, and rarely insightful. PBS, especially the Newshour team of Jim Lehrer and his cohorts, is a striking contrast. News features are covered in depth, with specialists or insiders interviewed to explore the issues in detail. A considerable effort is made to represent both sides of issues, without a tipping of the scale one way or the other by the facilitators. After years of watching the Newshour, I still don't know where Jim Lehrer stands in his personal politics--which cannot be said of any of the network and cable news anchors. Finally, being able to watch the news in a commercial-free atmosphere is a respite from the advertising onslaught of the networks. On the rare occasions that I do watch network news, I have the feeling of being conned: with so many advertisements and so little news, viewers are clearly less respected for their citizenship than for their potential as consumers.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:08 PM	Carl : Where do the most respected and admired US and world leaders, in every field, consent to be interviewed? PBS. Need I say more.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:07 PM	S Julius : PBS is essential to us. It's the only channel for entertainment. "The News Hour" is a nightly commitment. We'd be lost without it. Sad to say, commercial television is still a "wasteland". PBS is the only channel that respects the intelligence of the viewer.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:07 PM	Julius Gittens : The answer to McGrath's question was written 50 years ago (come October 15), by an unwitting prophet of Public TV. I reproduce them here with minor editing: "Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about fifty or a hundred years from now, and there should be preserved the [tapes] for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded ... evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. "I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. "There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER. "I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen ... it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television. "To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost. "This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful." Words to live by, to be framed for the walls of The NewsHour or any serious public broadcaster. Words uttered by Edward R. Murrow who, if he were alive today, would be delivering another, similar speech, excoriating cable and commercial TV (particularly his beloved CBS), and defending PBS to the hilt. PBS need only become, as the BBC has, a voice of excellence and integrity for global audiences. That way, it will ensure its survival in the United States.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:04 PM	ewsaunders : I was truly appalled by the article in the NYT concerning Public Television.This was not a case of reporting on the facts but a clearly biased negative commentary on programing with which I vehamently disagree.In fact we recently reduced our cable menue to the basic level because we found we never watched commercial channels.There never are programs even faintly resembling Frontline,Bill Moyers Journal or Expose to mention only a few and certainly Commercial network news is so shallow and uninformative it is offensive to watch.I only wish we were in a financial position to do much more to enable PBS todo even more programs without having to answer to political and commertial pressures.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:53 PM	Alex Clark : Just want to be a link in this chain of support for PBS. Right on Mr. Lehrer and our News Hour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:52 PM	BIG PBS FAN : I disagree with almost everything the Times article said about PBS. I think the only thing that would make TV better is MORE PBS - more money infused into the programming and better support of many stations who currently can't afford to provide all the good programming that PBS offers in some areas. I have had cable TV for about 20 years - first in MD and now in PA - not because I wanted it but because of poor reception with antennas. I have always been disappointed in the programming available on the cable channels and commercial TV. I think that sponsors and tv executives underestimate the intelligence of the American TV viewer. While there are many people who are fascinated by "reality shows", violence and crime, there are many who are interested in learning more about the beauty and positive side of Life and the things that should concern us all. PBS is not"educational TV", but it educates us in a classical way by exposing us to great literature, science, music and other arts. It provides information on current events and informed commentary to broaden our understanding. Instead of appealing to the lowest common denominator, I think TV should provide programs that set a positive example for children and adults alike. I think TV should strive to provide programming that uplifts us (not in a religious sense) but that arouses our curiosity and inspires us to aspire to rise above our circumstances however mean they may be. The Times editorial pointed out that cable TV is accesssible to all and that cable now does the same kind of drama and other programming that PBS has pioneered. The fact is that even IF you can afford cable tv, you may or may not want to ante up the extra money to have access to Showtime (the network that is producing The Tudors series, given as an example) or HBO. When I have traveled and had access to these channels I have always been disappointed that there is still nothing on TV. Don't get me wrong. I watch about 3-4 cable networks (Food, HGTV, etc.) but of all channels we get with our basic plan, we seldom find anything worth watching. My husband and I watch The News Hour every evening to get more in-depth information and balanced commentary than the commercial networks provide. And we look forward to the new and repeats of drama and Mystery series, the comedies, and science shows. My biggest disappointment with PBS is that the two PBS stations I have access to through DirectTV (Harrisburg PA) apparently do not have the funding to provide the same number of quality programs that the Maryland and DC affiliates provided when I lived there. One of these airs children's programs all day until about 7:00 pm. I would rather see funding for PBS increased and some of the funding for pork barrel projects, and even some of the support for individual artists cut. At a time when our country is falling behind other countries technologically and scientifically, we need to provide the kind of programming that only PBS is willing to do.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:40 PM	Carole Mize : As a senior citizen I greatly appreciate the programs on public broadcasting, especially the news hour. Friday night is my favorite television night with Jim Lehner, Washington Week,Inside Washington and especially Bill Moyers, then Now. Masterpiece is a favorite as is Antiques Roadshow. We are fortunate in Washington to have access to three public stations and I watch them all. Carole Mize

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:40 PM	Gloria : We watch PBS most nights. Each night we as the same question: "What would we do without PBS."

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:37 PM	hagopian : RE: NY Times= This is a wonderful example of the liberal press and how they can control public reaction to most everything. We are privileged to have a free press but there should be come kind of control on the fairness of what they publish.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:37 PM	David : The last time I watched a commercial newscast was on 9/11, and then only because it was able to get cameras to the scene. Other than that, I watch only the Newshour because it gives in depth and thoughtful coverage of world events. It offers civilized discussions between authoritative commentators and best of all, there are no short segments of news interrupted by screeching commercials and no crawling banners at the bottom of the screen. Furthermore, in addition to the newshour, there are so many worthwhile programs on PBS---Frontline, Nova, Now, Masterpiece, American Experience, Foreign Exchange etc. etc. Get rid of PBS? Never!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:32 PM	Sara K. : Turning forty next week, I've watched the NewsHour since middle school--although now at the WLIW World rebroadcast at 10 pm after the kids are in bed. The quality of the NewsHour has set the bar so high for my taste in TV, that there is no other news I watch (except for WashingtonWeek, otherwise known as "Mommy's Dragon Tales"--i.e. Mommy has non-negotiable dibs on the TV. Don't go away, lest I'm stuck watching MythBusters and Saddle Club.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:32 PM	Eric : Necessary? Absolutely. My wife and I have been fans of The Newshour for a long time. On Feb. 5, Super Tuesday, she and I started out flicking back and forth between CNN, MSNBC, and The Newshour for coverage of the primary results. After a short time, however, we simply stayed put on The Newshour for its rational, non-shouting, explanatory, expert analysis. We were so impressed, in fact, that the following day I signed us up for a membership with our local PBS station, the first time I have re-upped my membership in more than a decade. Long live thoughtful news analysis and long live The Newshour!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:30 PM	Marie Allen : The News Hour on PBS is the only news broadcast worth watching. It lacks the hype and the sensationalism of the other stations. It is journalism at its best. Both sides of every segment are explored in depth and the viewer becomes responsible for his own conclsion of the issues. If PBS news were not available,my next choice would be BBC.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:29 PM	barbara : If it were not for PBS, we would have no need for a TV set. If it were not for the NewsHour, with its most fair and balanced coverage, we would be woefully uninformed. Irrelevant? What were they thinking?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:26 PM	Valorie C.. : I have cable television because it is the only way I can watch television in the small town in which I live. Having said that...the ONLY channels I watch are PBS!! I am a proud member of several PBS stations, as well as several NPR stations. If it were not for PBS, I would never turn my television on. PBS brings me hope for the human race, keeping alive a sense of dignity, curiousity, and intellect. The day "they" decide to stop funding PBS is the day I take to the streets to protest. We must not allow Big Brother to control every aspect of out lives, and therefore continue the "dumbing down" of Americans!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:26 PM	David Paul : I think that the New York Times has far less relevance than PBS. If the Times would stop publishing it would mean nothing to me, but if PBS were to disappear it would be a disaster.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:26 PM	Alexandra Spencer : When my 12 year old daughter and I moved out to rural northern California from town, I told her we would not have cable television so that meant no television at all. I did not know until after she left for college that with a little $5 antenna, I could get our local PBS station. Since then, 1999, it is the only TV I watch and my only regret is that my daughter did not get to view some of the remarkable shows that are on. I did live to hear her thank me for taking the television away, however. I enjoy all the news; BBC, Deutshe Welle, Jim Lehrer, Frontline, Foreign Exchange, ect. But I LOVE Nature, Nova, the Brit-coms, and my favorite, The Red Green Show from Canada. Then there are all the wonderful specials that have introduced me to musicians I would not have known about... Andre Rieu most especially, and Victor Borge, who I loved as a kid but had no idea how many hours of entertainment he offered in his life. I bought the DVDs of him and my piano students have even tried some of his routines in recitals. Life without PBS? Never! We need it now more than ever!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:25 PM	Joe Ahlers : PBS and 60 Minutes are the only shows I watch on TV. What I most enjoy about the News Hour is that both points of view are presented in a civilized way. Clearly the participants interviewed on controversial issues have respect for the others' views. Bill Moyers' Journal is outstanding and I have arranged my Friday nights around his show. The New York Times might be advised to wonder if newspapers are relevant.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:25 PM	Olson Family : We started watching The NewsHour when it was recommended to me by my political science professor as being the best news program on television. That was in 1987, and it has been our favorite news program since that time. I trust the reporting on the NewsHour because it is relevant, thorough and non-partisan. I recommend to anyone who is looking for a fair and balanced news report. We also watch Washington Week in Review, which is excellent, and we listen to the BBC.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:21 PM	Allen : PBS is still the best thing on TV. The News Hour is the most accurate and very timely and it has a lot less fluff then the networks and narrow-minded cable news. The real question should be “Which sources of information would Jefferson, Madison, Roosevelt, and Lincoln choose?” These guys seemed to have made positive impact on their world at the time and were celebrated by historians. They choose high quality information and then trusted their abilities to process and choose the best course. This is still the best policy and PBS is one of the best sources for information.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:19 PM	maggie ryan : PBS is vital. PLEASSSSE

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:16 PM	Shirley : Not only relevant, but required watching for anyone who wants to make up their own mind, who still has a concept of the serious nature of the news, who even suspects that "news" is not entertainment! It's also OUR news bureau, not a news organization whose bottom line is money and profit. By now, anyone exercising their intellect knows that money corrupts objectivity, and profit-motivation silences dissenting voices, especially when they speak an inconvenient truth. We must NEVER be without PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:11 PM	Jon Wrisley : Please send this information to the teacher in New Orleans who was unable to teach reading because of the lack of ability/age TEXTBOOKS that are available.I found this website DONORSCHOOSE.ORG that hopefully will help. Please let me know if you receive this info (teacher) The story was on the Leherer Report. Thanks

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:09 PM	Sarah Rich : PBS is more relevant than anything else on television. For the best understanding of contemporary issues I read the NYT and watch PBS every day. How disappointing that the NYT writer fails to appreciate the value of the many PBS programs that enlighten viewers, such as Charlie Rose, NewsHour, Frontline, Moyers, American Experience. Cable TV offers quantity, but doesn't offer anything close to the quality of analysis and coverage in these programs. NPR and other radio news sources lack the evenhanded approach of the NewsHour and its excellent reporters. Lehrer continues after many years to offer the best news program and the only one that offers in-depth coverage of international news, foreign affairs, the economy and many other issues that are critical to our lives. You can't get this kind of careful preparation and in-depth analysis anywhere else. Is PBS relevant? Is an informed citizenry relevant to a democracy?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:06 PM	RAB : PBS has been an important part of our democratic lives, and needs the continued supported of our citizenry and leaders. I've always admired the breadth and quality of PBS programming and regularly plan my weekday evenings around programs of interest, especially the Lehrer News Report, a program I've followed since JMcNeil partnered the show. It's a source of balanced reporting with no talking heads trying to out shout one another.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:05 PM	cgc : In some respects I can agree with the NYT article; there does seem to be a dearth of fresh, original programming (and the material shown during fund-raising is hideous). However, the News Hour, Bill Moyers, Frontline, David B., all provide solid information, not sound bites. Bringing intelligent discussion and analysis is essential to understanding the world we live in and these programs do that well. We are not ardent TV viewers and have only the most basic cable offerings. If PBS disappeared we could throw out our TV (which we may have to do next year anyway). Yes, PBS could stand a bit of a jolt to get it moving again (money would help) but ditching it entirely would be a fatal mistake. And I agree that the News Hours doesn't always press hard enough in interviews, perhaps erring on the side of fairness. Less time spent on the latest medical practice or mal-practice (are they too indebted to their medical supporter) would allow for more time explaining Supreme Court actions, demographics of important states in the election process as was done in Nevada and elsewhere, And more arts coverage which is always excellently done but not often enough.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:04 PM	SGORMAN : I am a firm believer in PBS. If only the other networks were as devoted to educating their viewers as PBS is and less interested in selling us drugs that we don't need our country would be again at the top of the charts for contributing to the world. Instead we are entertained by people who have no morals and think sex and explosions are entertaining. Thank you PBS for an alternative of facts instead of opinions of handsome people.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 11:59 AM	Ruth J. Barbier : The question is not whether PBS is still necessary. Is commercial TV in all its de-sensitizing, make-a-buck at all costs, pandering still necessary. Of course PBS is necessary, more so now than ever, with