The Online NewsHour: About Us | Feedback

E-mail This Page	Print This Page

New York Times Article Questions PBS's Relevancy

February 20, 2008

On Sunday February 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 on Monday evening, they had received over 800 responses.

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

Make a Comment | Link | Email

NewsHour Viewer Comments Page 1 \| 2 \| 3

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:52 AM	Scott Wilson : PBS is still necessary at my house. I have not and probably never will subscribe to cable and I am not 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. PBS news can sometimes be boring but I prefer boring to 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 09:52 AM	Janet : Perhaps it is a sign of the times that some people think PBS is no longer "relevant" or "necessary." A few minutes of watching other cable or network programs should convince anyone that PBS, particularly its news programs, provides the in- depth and balanced coverage not available anywhere else. If you only like sound bites and shouting (not to mention endless celebrity coverage), I suppose the NewsHour isn't for you. To be fair, I sometimes wish the NewsHour interviewers would ask more hard questions and do more follow up, but, all in all, give me Jim Lehrer and Co any day!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:50 AM	Joan Hardie : While I recognize that PBS isn't what it was in the "good old days" when Masterpiece Theater showed such truly incredible stuff and Mystery was a Thursday night "must", it is still a major necessity in our household. What would we do without "The Newshour" every night and the Friday night lineup with Gwen, Bill Moyers, Now and Inside Washington? PBS needs more money (and lots of it) not less!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:47 AM	Paul : My wife and I watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer every evening. There is no alternative on TV. The News Hour provides a concise summary of the news and then in depth reporting on several relevant topics. We also regularly watch Masterpiece Theater and frequently watch Bill Moyer's Journal and Rick Steves' Europe. We also watch reruns of shows like As Time Goes By. We also listen to NPR during the day - particularly at meal time and when we are in the car and at the gym. We contribute to UNCTV and to WUNC.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:46 AM	Kay Plavidal : The NYT article is extremely short-sighted, like so many busy Americans today who want their information in sound bites. The article implies that because of the wide variety of cable programs, PBS is unnecessary. I disagree. Many of cable's "educational programs" are the lazy man's educational programs, focusing on action and gadgets instead of knowledge and understanding. And many of cable's "news" programs are simply vehicles for emphasizing Republican stances. Why so many people are willing to spend their hard-earned money for access to these cable programs is lost on me -- American citizens should not HAVE TO PAY for access to intelligent, unbiased, thought-provoking programs. I have been a proud supporter of PBS for almost 20 years, and if it were not for PBS I would not watch TV. If there is anything unnecessary in television programming today, it is the multitude of empty and biased cable programs that are, unfortunately, entertaining millions of Americans as we speak.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:46 AM	mike burns : In response to the New York Times piece regarding PBS and the News Hour, I'd like to offer that the News Hour is the best and most responsible news program on television anywhere in America. What the commercial networks and cable offer cannot compare to the News Hour. I will continue to support PBS financially and hope the News Hour remains a part of the PBS line-up.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:43 AM	Paula Terry : PBS is ESSENTIAL and always will be. It is the one media that has maintained its integrity. It is sad that the government has permitted large media groups to merge into huge enterprises. Not only do many smaller media go uncer, but they weild their power,dictating policy and programming. Greed and politics are their motivation in most cases. It's sad for America. We hope and pray that PBS will continue to maintain its high standards as they provide their service to our country and beyond.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:40 AM	Marilyn Brown : PBS is still necessary. In addition to the excellent content, I thrive on the lack of raucous childish advertising. While I regret the 'advertising' that does go on on PBS, at least it is more subtle than commercial TV. I cannot watch commercial TV past one set of advertising.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:40 AM	Ed Byrne : Blaming the victim is, of course, a fairly ancient political tactic; but the NYT might have been a bit more circumspect. We would be submerged in bland-speak were it not for the still solid news programs that PBS delivers. And since when has newest become a synonym for best (other than on Madison Ave, that is)? The gut issue, though, is the methodical underfunding that limits quality productions and invites longer commercials and begging sessions. How embarrassing it is that the US economy can't muster the level of govt funding, and political autonomy, that prevails in the UK.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:39 AM	Rafe : Not everyone can afford cable (I can't). Please don't deny us PBS which is the only free television network providing consistent intelligent knowledge.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:37 AM	mjc : I would not need a TV anymore if PBS was no longer aired.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:36 AM	Kalina Bourdeau : As a person who cannot afford cable television, I don't know what I'd do without PBS. I watch it daily. From African American Lives (which I LOVE- and I got ALOT of my non-public TV family and friends to watch with a mass email I sent out) to Frontline, to documentaries, to Lidia's Family Table and the Saturday morning cooking shows, to Globe Trekker, and I watch the NewsHour about 4-5 nights a week. It's my favorite news broadcast. I am struggling to pay back student loans, pay winter heating bills, all my bills. I cannot afford cable and although I own a computer, no longer have the internet at home as I CAN'T AFFORD IT. What are people like me supposed to do without PBS? Crawl into a cave?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:24 AM	Cynthia Booker : Add my voice to the chorus shouting YES. PBS is actually even more necessary. It has something for everybody. The NYT made interesting points that PBS can use to keep its focus. Constant self-examination is necessary to stay relevant. And while the British sitcoms are not current entertainment, they are delightful and the only programs I can watch again and again. And without exception, every person whom I have ever got to watch the News Hour has become a dedicated viewer. The difference between the hour of in depth information and the commercial network coverage is amazing. Commercial network news has a valuable place, also, but it is a different place from what PBS provides. PBS continues to be absolutely necessary.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:23 AM	Jill : Better to get your information from Frontline than Judith Miller.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:18 AM	Jeff in Greenville South Carolina : I feel that now is the time to vote, for ETV. In recent years I have felt that democracy in the United States has been melting away. A strong and free press has always played a major part in the story of successful democracy in our country. I have always counted on ETV's evening news hour and, to a slightly lesser extent, on NBC's Sunday morning press show to give me a balanced, unbiased view on those issues that will determine how I will vote. I am very fortunate, in that I receive both the South Carolina and the North Carolina ETV stations. I could not do without either one. I was disturbed to hear that our government is considering cutting the funding for these stations. Please tell me that it isn't going to be so.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:16 AM	Ernie : Yes! PBS is necessary! My children and I watched Sesame Street and the other programs for children when they were younger. All of the human interest and science broadcasts were also part of our entertainment and learning experiences then as they are today. The on-going news journals such as Now, Bill Moyers, and Frontline enlighten us with information regarding decisions made by public officials and corporate leaders so that we can make an educated decision about how such decisions will affect our lives and livelihoods! Finally, The News Hour with Jim Lerher is THE STANDARD for reporting and evaluating all of the issues affecting us here at home as well as events taking place in other countries! PBS television has been and will continue to be a cherished and valuable source of education and entertainment for every age group for several generations due to the independence of commerical and political restraints. If some of the PBS broadcasts are the ire of some public and corporate officials then along with all of my aforementioned reasons for PBS to remain a viable source of education and entertainment I considered my tax money as being WELL SPENT!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:15 AM	Kathy, Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio : PBS is an oasis of quality in a desert of crap on TV. What we need is more government funding of this treasure, not less. The NewsHour is better than any of the other nightly news shows, and we appreciate hearing the in-depth reporting and variety of perspectives on issues that it provides. All of the PBS news programming is excellent, and we enjoy other shows, too, especially "Masterpiece," "Mystery," and "American Experience." And although there are the sponsor credits at the beginning and end of shows, we are not bombarded with commercials throughout, as in other TV. We are also avid NPR fans and listen to it almost exclusively. Thank you, NPR and PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:15 AM	robert silverman : My wife and I do not subscribe to cable and except for the occasional baseball game, we watch only public television. We believe it is indispensable--the public affairs programs are not found anywhere else so far as I know. Our children allow their kids to watch only public television's educational children's programs- no violence, nothing to give nightmares, plus they learn something. We just watched "Company"--I don't think cable or the networks would devote the time to a show like that- plus the interview with Sondheim. One suggestion-- with the presidential campaign as hot as it is on the Democratic side- we would like to be able to have seen the candidates debate rather than just seeing the Brooks - Shield or Washington Week post mortems. Anyway, keep up the good work. By the way, we are members of Channel Thirteen and have been for many years.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:15 AM	Nan : PBS is very important to our family. It is virtually the ONLY station worth viewing. Commercial interests always influence content on the other stations. We need in depth reports, not "sound bite" reporting.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:11 AM	epm - artist : I echo most, if not all of the, comments already sent. We do not have broadband as we live in a rural area; and my husband I choose not to get satellite or cable in our home because we have local stations and access to two PBS stations. PBS on hdtv allows us 3 more stations; and Jim Lehrer provides with a comprehensive view of all national news. Each evening we count on his program to provide us with the latest in national news, information on the arts, tributes to our solders, and so much, much more. PBS not needed! Who are they to tell the rest of the country--and we do live in the country--that PBS is not needed! Keep up the great, great work--all of pbs, and especially the Jim Lehrer program and staff.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:08 AM	Barbara Frueh : I can not even imagine the thought of losing the "News Hour with Jim Lehrer" program. I look to this hour as an opportunity to hear an unbiased look at the days happenings as well as people on both sides of very important issues. The comprehensive and intelligent approach to the variety of subjects as well as an informed evaluation of what is happening in the highest court of the land would be a huge loss to me. I value both radio and television broadcasts of public broadcasting and think we would continue to lose a very valued asset. I am of the opinion that our country has lost so much over the past seven years in worldwide reputation and stature with the invasion of Iraq, that we need to be careful we do not lose more.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:07 AM	Dave Renton : The News Hour is a staple in our house. The in-depth coverage of a story allows me the opportunity to hear more than a sound byte. That being said, during this long political season I have grown weary of the close coverage given the Presidential race to the detriment often times of other stories.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 09:06 AM	Tom Hodges : The News Hour is the only news program that I watch and could not imagine life without it. The network & cable news programs are trash. PBS is the best channel on television by a long shot. The Times article is just stupid. Who cares how old Jim Lehrer is? He has more journalistic integrity that the whole staff of the the Times does combined.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:55 AM	John T.Glover : I haven't seen REGULAR TV in years,but I download the "Newshour w/Jim Lehrer",and "Washington Week"every week to keep up with the world.PBS is a vital part to my life when it comes to getting excellent journalism.PBS is not a necessay but a MUST!!Thank you!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:48 AM	Rochester-area Viewer : I agree with all the positive comments about the Lehrer News Hour and Washington Week. What I've found interesting is the apparent equating of the News Hour with PBS in people's minds. Living within range of two PBS stations, I find the general tone very different. "Smug" is the only word I can find to describe one of them, and now that the station president's salary has been published, I know that they certainly don't need my money. The second station is a real gem!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:41 AM	J White : As an American married to a English citizen, I travel often to Britain, where we watch a lot of news television from around Europe. We often comment on the fact that the PBS Newshour is the finest, most even-handed reporting we see anywhere in the world. The breadth and depth of the stories provide insights not available elsewhere. It is, in fact, our favorite show of any kind on television - with our tongues somewhat in cheek we call it "our show" - and Brooks and Shields are "our boys." And Mr. Lehrer is a national asset, guiding the Newshour with extraordinary compassion and intelligence. If the show were gone, this nation would be bereft of a great treasure. We need more like the Newshour filling our airways, instead of so much of the sad mediocrity that exists on other channels.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:39 AM	Jan K. : I actually watch limited TV news, but there are times when it's important to me and I trust NO program OTHER than PBS, particularly The Newshour and Washington Week.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:36 AM	Esther Weil : I certainly think that PBS could be a worthwhile institution although I also think its programming has in recent years gone sharply downhill: there is far too much pablum (i.e., nostalgia and mindless entertainment) as opposed to educational, cultural, and public interest (i.e., in-depth news and significant-issue reporting, international news) programming. In essence it has ceded its distinctiveness. I suspect, in fact, that C-SPAN now attracts a larger share of viewers who are interested in substantive programming. I ascribe these poor programming decisions to the constant need to raise money and not offend the power structure and potential donors and suspect that it will only improve if we devise a funding system---perhaps one similar to that of the BBC where all television owners must pay a license fee to support public programming---that insulates programming decisions from political and popular control.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:35 AM	John Freudenstein : The NYT article reads as though it were written by a 17 year old. Apparently "Masterpiece" does not have enough nudity for him. Some of us appreciate the stability and lack of shouting that we find on PBS. Could it not be that these programs and people are still there because they are GOOD? I take particular offense at citing Jim Lehrer's age -- what has that to do with the quality of the product? Just for perspective on my response, I am a 44 yr old faculty member at a Big-10 university. I find nothing better on cable; my TV is tuned to PBS most of the time. As I remember, there was a similarly critical article about PBS in the NYT a year or two ago -- maybe it was written by the same author when he was 15...

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:34 AM	eclb : get rid of pbs / are they insane newshour is the only thinking adult's news show frontline is the only place for in depth critical analysis of our day what would be left to watch except fancy graphics and woosh sounds our world would be

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:16 AM	H. Atkinson : What next? The News Hour is the only place I can find that gives me unbiased and important news. So now the New York Times editors have deemed that theirs is the only information worth knowing. "All the news that's fit to print". Some slogan! Have watched MacNeil/Lehrer for years and never got out of the habit of referring to it by the original title. Guests are always so knowledgeable and well spoken and the regulars top notch. Brooke & Shields are winners in my book. So civilized in their disagreements. Guess you understand that I need the News Hour and Yes, I do support PBS via WGBH, Boston.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:11 AM	Phil : Of course this is a biased sample -- those who post comments here are the ones paying most attention to PBS. Although the NewsHour remains consistently excellent, there has been a decline in quality of arts and science programs at PBS in my opinion. Nature (the series, as well as Nature herself) has become more about human activities and this is sad. I would rather see repeats of Nature from the 1980s, each older episode appended with a brief coda updating us on the current status of its subjects. Not only are the older shows higher in quality, but they are also already paid for. A "Nature Redux" would be cheaper and more informative than another new episode about people and their pets. I believe other PBS series would also benefit by reshowing classic performances. I am thrilled that Eyes on the Prize is being rebroadcast. The NewsHour, however, remains both new and classic and should be allowed to continue on its path.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 08:10 AM	Barbara Degler : Of all the worthwhile programs on PBS, by far the most important to me is Jim Lehrer's Newshour. With its wide coverage and different points of view, it's invaluable.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:45 AM	Donna and Gerri : One of us is an expat living permanently in Australia, the other is an Aussie always keen to receive accurate and unbiased information from the U.S.A. like that provided by the Lehrer Report. The cable-based news or "purchased news grabs" are so often laden with superficiality, spin and little or no analysis of the issues. To even contemplate that PBS programs like The News Hour be removed fill us with despair about where America's values have gone - democracy and freedom of speech are central to maintaining a semblance of intelligent debate and informed discussion.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:43 AM	Carl : I have watched the McNeil/Lehrer Newshour for years. It is the only news program that I regularly watch, and the only one that provides both conservative as well as liberal viewpoints. I have also enjoyed other PBS programs over the years, such as Ken Burns' series on the Civil War, Jazz, and World War II, and a variety of other shows such as Norm Abrams' New Yankee Workshop. I support PBS through Public Broadcasting Atlanta and their stations WPBA 30-PBS and WABE 90.1 FM-NPR. It is a true blessing to have non-commercial television and radio. NBC NEWS is a bit player in GENERAL ELECTRIC. ABC NEWS is just a small part of Walt Disney's empire. FOX NEWS is just part of Rupert Murdock's NEWS CORP. In an age of corporate consolidations and cost-cutting, just how dedicated are these businesses to excellence in their news units? PBS is relevant in my life, and I'm sure that PBS is also relevant in the lives of millions of Americans. I wish that everyone who watches PBS, also supported it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:42 AM	C J : I hurry home to watch Jim Lehrer and on Fridays love the line up with Gwen Ifill & company. I never miss Masterpiece Theater and enjoy Mystery and also the local PBS shows. It is Very relevant in my life.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:40 AM	Nancy Sinclair : I can't hardly imagine life without the Newshour! It is the most intelligent, consistently interesting and challenging news program on the public airwaves today. The charge that it is "irrelevant" is yet another blow to those of us concerned about the continuing dumbing down of America. Please allow us to have at least a little piece of national television that we actually look forward to watching! And yes, we will pay to watch: we have been members for more than 15 years.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 07:32 AM	John from Philadelphia : PBS and the News Hour are absolutely essential and I could not imagine television without them. As so many others have said, they fill a real need and a void on television--high quality programming and in-depth, unbiased news coverage. I love to watch them, and I am proud to support them.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:55 AM	Fern : Thanks for the link to the NYT article re: is PBS necessary. The article reminded me that, as a consistent viewer, I have a responsibility to pledge & support PBS! One program that was overlooked is the fairly new "History Detectives." We literally plan our evening around that program. We enjoy every second of it, watch it together, discuss it, go to the website - in short, we learn-we grow- we share. We understand that it only runs for 1/2 a year, but it might be nice to run it in the winter (when we have cabin fever). PBS is something I've grown up with and depend upon. It's a wonderful mix of old (sorry NYT's - when I see my 81-year old mother we share a wonderful time 'visiting' with Hyacynth and her peeps :). And the new - my husband and I LOVE the ballroom challenge, and honestly we've never ever watched one of the 'contest' shows on commercial TV. We've never watched american idol, survivor or the dancing with the stars thing. Yes, PBS is beloved (in my house) for entertainment, education and for creativity. Thank you PBS for the break from short-format commercial laden 'fluff' that numbs our inner muse.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:50 AM	jrr : PBS has never been more necessary!!!! ALL other news outlets pale in comparison...in my opinion it's not even a contest.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:34 AM	Burt Harter : Is the New York Times Still Necessary?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:31 AM	Rich Mesek : Cable news and Network news offers nothing close to the depth of inquiry seen in the News Hour, Frontline or NOW. Unfortunately, the News Hour too often bows to political pressure to provide conservative, religious and commercial opposing opinions that represent the fringe of their respective arenas. This is offered to viewers as "balanced" when, in fact, the real debate is going on off-camera and the politically-required fringe opinions are passed along uncritically to viewers. This style of presenting the news led us into war in Iraq and a collapsing economy without much of a perspective on how we got into these problems. Lies are passed along from the government largely uncritically through the News Hour, which omits the discussion about what we should do about these lies and what the consequences mean. PBS needs to dissociate itself completely from government and commercial pressures if it to retain its unique relevance.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 06:29 AM	Janice M.Flaherty,M.D. : My television would not be on at 6 p.m. were the Newshour not on then.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:57 AM	Jesse Goldman : I have watched "The Newshour" daily for years thanks to TIVO. I also read the New York Times online. I classify them both as incredibly good sources or information and opinion. Because I value both sources of objectivity I praise this discussion. Nevertheless, I must give my unqualified support to the newshour. I just cant imagine my perception of the world without it. It is a work of art and beauty and science and culture. I don't really know how to say it nicely but all network news programs; local and national should be embarrassed by their lack of content compared with "The Newshour".

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:46 AM	Barb Layman : The programming on PBS is excellent and truthful. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is on at our house, as are Masterpiece Theatre and This Old House. I contribute to the station and will continue to do so. Programming on the other stations is often filled with commercials and the quality is highly questionable.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:23 AM	David Fisher : PBS will remain relevant as long as there are people in America demanding more than the sound bite journalism that passes for news reporting. No other program on cable or network television can hold a candle to Jim Lehrer and The Nightly News Hour, Bill Moyers or David Broncaccio. There is no where else to turn to in my cable spectrum of 200+ channels for the in depth discussion of news events and issues of importance that I get every night on PBS. Anything else is frosting on the cake, however one can't help but note that the decline in programming quality has been presided over by the Republican operatives placed in charge by the current administration! If Congress was faithful to its responsibilities to the American people it would provide unbiased oversight and increase the PBS budget significantly. It is a disgrace that the publicly chartered television network of the richest nation on earth must prostrate itself every six weeks or so in the name of securing public funding to support its continued existence as a presence in American households. Questions the NYT should have asked: Why has the once reknowned quality of PBS programming been allowed to erode to the point that its relevancy could even be questioned? Did the Bush administration put directors in charged there to preside over the death of PBS or to ensure that it remains a vital contributor to the American television scene? Why weren't the Republican Congresses exercising their mandate and providing oversight instead of enabling political manipulation of this resource of such critical importance to the American public? What are the candidates positions vis a vis public funding of quasi-public enterprises, e.g., NPR, PBS, Amtrak?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:21 AM	Felicia & Andrew : The News Hour is a national treasure. Further, PBS and NPR represent the best in American journalism, along with certain newspapers one of which has diminished its own aura by publishing an article to the contrary.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 05:04 AM	j.whitpot : We both watch/listen to Lehrer News Report and have for 20 years. It is an important part of our daily lives. It certainly is necessary to us. I can hardly believe this program has been called into question.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:43 AM	Jamie : The short answer is absolutely "YES". PBS is very necessary. Though ever the skeptic PBS will always have a place on my online menu bar right next to other fine global news sources.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 04:00 AM	Mehmet : I do not see anything wrong with the NYT article. The responses that we see here are pretty much biased, since these responses were explicitly sought by Jim Lehrer on the air. I believe wiewers of the Newshour have felt obliged to respond positively to his call. First thing first, I do not want to lose the Newshour. Even though I believe there is space for "a lot of" improvement, it is better to have it as is than not having it at all. I have to contradict with many of the views expressed here: The Newshour is very biased. Its spectrum ranges from radical right (you can watch every "conservative" view points) to the mainstream political views of the democratic party. If you want to be informed about what the activists and left-leaning democrats think about the current events, you should forget the Newshour, but get that portion of the commentaries from other sources such as democracynow.org. I have seen so many right wing lunatics on the Newshour (supposedly to give an impression of being unbiased, fair, balanced etc.), but do not remember seeing prominent left wing characters such as Naom Chomsky, Amy Goodman or Katrina vanden Heuvel. In this respect, Bill Moyers Journal has a wider range than the Newshour. Can you find satisfactory answers to the following questions? I cannot. * What can be the reason that the Newshour does not convey us for what other parties such as the Green Party stand for? Why don't we see their views on the current events? * Why there is almost no discussion about why our system has been locked into two party system and how can we overcome this limitation? * Why don't we see debates of presidential candidates on the Newshour every other week on a specific theme? Those candidates have to spend millions of dollars for ads. And those who did not have that much money have practically been silenced by the corporate run media. Why the Newshour did not play a role to level the playing field?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:50 AM	Anthony : If only for the Newshour PBS is priceless. Easily the best news out of the US, probably the world. I moved 3 years ago from NY to New Zealand -- where the Newshour is nightly fare. What a blessing. The Newshour shows the world that there is still some serious commentary about American from out of the US. Where else can the world turn, CNN, FOX, ABC. God help us if they are the face of the US. And then there's NOVA, Moyers, and yes, Antiques Roadshow to name just a few. It's all the best there is and abandoning PBS would be an almost criminal action by those who would control the pursestrings. What a shameful suggestion by those who should know better and who make moronic comments from within their cable cocoon.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:39 AM	Thomas Phelan : I've been watching The Jim Lehrer NewsHour for years and years, because it is a public funded and not funded by big corporations. Their views are expressed and reflected in their news broadcasts, and I think this is wrong. I believe and I know I'm not the only one that feels this way. I still watch other news shows for local information and events, but I still watch PBS's The Jim Lehrer NewsHour everyday for the real deal on what's happening in the world today. I can believe PBS's views over any other station's any day.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:19 AM	D. Albert : What a silly question. PBS is more necessary than ever.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:11 AM	Joseph C. Dunn : Let’s see now. If I understand McGrath correctly, the Republicans are in charge of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Bush administration wants to gut Public Broadcasting's federal subsidy, and resistance is therefore futile. Moreover, internal PBS/NPR funding allocation is a zero sum game and NPR deserves a chunk of the dwindling PBS pot because PBS programs are suffering for lack of funds, because Jim Lehrer has been around too long and his listeners are really, really old, because NPR doesn’t shrink from tossing out older guys in its quest for higher ratings on the morning drive, because BBC documentaries are better produced and have more nudity than Masterpiece Theatre, and because McGrath doesn’t know where we’d be without NPR’s navel-gazing “This American Life”. To this I say: Where would we be without McGrath and his closely reasoned perspicacious article to lead us into the light? The New York Times should be proud to have such a far-seeing, tolerant and disinterested deep thinker on its staff. Joseph C. Dunn

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:09 AM	vince roach : CNN and Fox News are a joke. They are little more than hucksterism and rabid partisanship. PBS brings intelligent presentation about serious problems, thoughtfully delivered.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 03:06 AM	bryan_m : PBS investigative journalism like Now remain top notch and relevant. The News Hour is that is unbiased nightly news analysis show worth watching, to say cable has replaced it with what? Fox News, you must be joking. I will say that NPR actually is better, but how many people come home and listen to the radio? I will agree with the point that Master Piece theater is laughably bad.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:45 AM	loyd 2002 : PBS is no longer objective: it has become a platform for the Obama campaign.Ojectivity has been tossed out the window;they have become the FOX network.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:41 AM	Peter Maydanis : Personally, I enjoy seeing 55 minutes of a show and not 40 minutes of a show split up to allow 20 minutes of advertising during the hour. Jim Lehrer's show is worth more in knowledge of what has taken place in the country and the world that all five of our local news programs showing us murder, mayhem, and horrific auto accidents. If the latter is what you want, then PBS is not your cup of tea.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:35 AM	Peter Maydanis : Sure, some of PBS' lineup is stodgy and square. Lawrence Welk come immediately to mind. But the Jim Lehrer New Hour is as lively and up-to-date as anything on the air waves. Where else can one view Kings, Queens, Ambassadors, Presidents, Prime Ministers and leading scientists and scholars interviewed? I have learned so very much about nature and wildlife that helps me when I try and explain things to my grandchildren. For example, I had always heard that lions sometimes kill their cubs. Why? Easily ansered now that I know that a male lion does that soon after taking over an existing pride because it wants the lioness to ovulate so he can have sex with her. She does not ovulate when lactating. Ergo--kill the cubs that are nursing. Not earth-shaking, but I know something now that I never read or heard about in 70 some years which helps me understand and explain how nature works. You are not going to get that kind of knowledge watching CSI or Law and Order or the usual 40 minute fare sueezed in with 20 minutes of commercials on the network. KEEP PBS!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:25 AM	Rebecca Corwin : There is absolutely no reason even to consider getting rid of PBS. There is real learning available to all of us--less glitzy and more gutsy. PBS brings significant learning to people who want it. We haven't grown beyond PBS; rather, we have receded from some of the amazing and educational programs that grew in the earliest days of television. If you want to, look on "educational" shows on NBC, ABC, CBS. There is no learning except children should be mouthy and greedy--children should consider themselves the center of the family--children run the households. Surely there are places for REAL learning about REAL things. PBS seems to be the only place at this point. It must remain.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:15 AM	Alice T. : I cannot believe that anyone, especially someone at a respected newspaper, would question the essential worth and value of PBS broadcasting. To me this service is the essence of the 'American way'. This has always been true, but now that the FCC, which is supposed to protect our Press and its function to enlighten the nation, has decided to reduce the number of news media in this country, it is VITAL. As a result of their action, commercial broadcasting has withered away to very little but an arm of Madison Avenue. I watch PBS (or NPR)from the time my radio awakens me, until I go to sleep late at night. The only time I turn to commercial TV is to see the local weather map, or when I have some need of local news. I find the PBS programing fascinating. Even when I don't expect to find a feature worthwhile, I almost always find it interesting, and often very educational. I even watch the cartoons (because there is NOTHING else to watch in the early afternoon when I usually eat lunch). I'd rather see 'Between the Lions' than soap operas or infomercials any day! To me, PBS keeps me entertained, informed, and HAPPY, whereas commercial TV bores me, scares me, and depresses me. When I think of all the Americans who seem to prefer cable and therefore are actually watching that awful junk, I become aware of why there is so much crime, mental illness, and outright stupidity in our country. Hurray for Public Brosdcasting!! Long may it wave.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:10 AM	Nancy Zimmerman : I haven't read all the comments, so I apologize if I am being repititious. Not all of us can afford cable, and I do not function well with 500 choices. Any show I want to watch will be over by the time I find out what is on everywhere. Perhaps the New York Times has outlived its time as "the number one newspapaer in America". They have resorted to printing a front page article indicting McCain with only the words of two anonymous sources. PBS would not do that even with some of its very liberal hosts. I could not be an informed citizen without PBS and the C-SPAN networks. There is actual conversation, especially on The News Hour. The hosts do not try to lead the guests. I just saw part of tonight's democrat debate on CNN. The "hosts" could not wait for the candidates to shut up about health care. They wanted their turn in the limelight with their performance as a questioner. And then, of course, we had to stop thre debate for commercials. Assinine for a healthy exchange of ides between the primary candidates. I treasure PBS, and hope, perhaps, The Times will consider that they are irrelevant. How many people making under $30K a year read their offerings in the world of news?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:08 AM	Jane C Anderson MD : The New York Times article on PBS was certainly a biased one. Would this writer have me be satisfied with stupid sit-coms and reality shows? If PBS's intelligent programing ceases I will read all the books I have waiting on my shelves rather than submit to long commercials and drivel. This week' s Nova taught me about new discoveries in ape intelligence in comparison to humans. Charlie Rose's science series is a valuable window for me to glimpse new developments that I could never have access to in the standard news.Jane Austen is just a recent series and not the total of Masterpiece Theater (I prefer the old and logical descriptive name). The writer is most certainly not a regular viewer of PBS. I hope this is because he is busy working and not because he is satisfied with the network and cable programming. Bill Moyer's Journal is the most intelligent discussion of ethical situations in our society today. More funding for PBS please, I most certainly don't mind tax dollars to PBS rather than the crooked war in Iraq. Jane C Anderson, Colorado

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:07 AM	jean Lester : Is the Newshour relevant? they must be joking! It is the only relevant, unbiased news available to us and the reporting is excellent. Please, please, don't let anyone or anything take the Newshour off the air.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:06 AM	Elaine Altagen Lopez : I look forward to every weekday airing of Jim Lehrer News Hour. That is the only news source that provides the viewer with in depth reports and discussions exploring different aspect of the topic at hand I rarely watch ABC, CBS. or NBC for my evening news vewing

Posted: 02/22/08 at 02:03 AM	William Brueske : The PBS News Hour is, for me, THE important program of the day, and Friday's political discussions make it the most important evening of the week. PBS has the most professional and objective TV journalists in the business, always a pleasure to watch; extended coverage of selected topics, augmented by interviews and discussions with guests, is one of the best features of the News Hour. Other programs, such as drama, music, and documentaries, especially those produced by WNET, WGBH, and other PBS affiliates, are also excellent fare. I feel that PBS is one of the last bastions of intelligent television broadcasting in America, a far cry from the sensational, violent, and heavily sponsored menu provided by commercial networks. The New York Times article is flippant, misses the point of public television, and really is relevant only for those who think (and view television) like its author.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:52 AM	DERY : I just finished my Journalistic Writing course last quarter. Recently when watching the major news programs I always got confused. I felt either what my professor taught me in class is wrong, or the press circles need launch a "movement" of job retraining. Thanks PBS gives me my confidence back by showing me that the conscience and the basic principles of American Journalism are still alive!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:44 AM	Bud Green : PBS/Newshour is the only honest and through programming on TV. It is essential in this era of phoney network propoganda. I watch PBS, starting with Lehrer every night and usually never change the channel unless it to Sundance or IFC. Never to networks with commercials!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:36 AM	M. Brundage : Yes, Public TV is relevant and absolutely necessary. May I put in a word for the aging viewers who have been ardent supporters from the start? The N.Y. Times article focuses on Public Radio as a more acceptable medium serving the same purpose as Public TV...and I have no quarrel with that view, as I had always had my radio tuned onto Public Radio... until I could no longer hear. We unfortunates who rely upon captions on TV to keep up with the kind of fare offered by public affairs broadcasting would be lost without Public TV, especially the serious, unbiased, and pertinent Lehrer News hour.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:32 AM	Kmodem : To Lydia! What you said is so true tath not everyone can afford cable. Right now because of a home phone and internet plan I miss watching my PBS news and shows because I can not afford both cable and internet.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:28 AM	Kmodem : YES WE NEED PBS! Where else are we going to be able to trust what he hear or view? Can I just say one big slang DUH!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:27 AM	Nick Basile : The New York Times piece on PBS seems more a polemic designed by a Yalie looking for attention than a serious analysis of public television. Charles McGrath is no John O’Connor.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:26 AM	Norman : Is the New York Times necessary? For that matter, is Charles McGrath necessary?

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:22 AM	Lois Cooper : Public broadcasting remains relevant to anyone who cares about intelligent, factual,unbiased reporting such as that on the Newshour. Its staff of fine reporters and behind-the-scenes staff are to be commended for the quality of their reporting and programming. We cannot live without the informational programming provided by public broadcasting. Thirty second sound bites that masquerade as news are not enough for people who care about what is going on in the world around us. Bill Moyers and his insightful discussions, Washington Week (two of our favorites), the new Now with David Brancaccio, Front Line, Ken Burns, Nature, Masterpiece Theatre, Antique Road Show, This Old House as well as Live from Lincoln Center and other classical music presentations are among our regular fare. Public radio fills the remainder of our listening and watching hours. The Bush administration is attempting to emasculate public broadcasting. It seems that "Dubbya" is trying to dumb down the country by limiting its access to honest, factual news. The fact that the FCC is eliminating independent sources of news with all the mergers they are encouraging is further proof that Bush is trying to control and limit our news sources and keep us in the dark about what is really going on. There are enough people in the country who care about quality broadcasting that funding should be provided for such an important resource rather than more bridges to nowhere. Keep up the good work! With the demise of the Bush administration, funding should be increased so that you may to continue to provide your excellent serive to those of us who care. Lois Cooper

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:22 AM	Kathy Latronica : I won't watch any other news program.I trust Jim Lehrer and the staff of the News Hour.My week is'nt complete until I hear the comments of David Brooks and Mark Shields on Friday evening.I want information with my news, not hysteria.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:15 AM	Ann in Ohio : I am absolutely appalled that the Times would give ink to such an idea! Without PBS, there would be nowhere to find reliable information about our public concerns. I watch the News Hour daily and have virtually nothing but NPR on my car radio. Irrelevant? HOGWASH!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:13 AM	P. Gaedeke : PBS is absolutely necessary. PBS provides essential choices: if you don't want the moderator to redefine, recharacterise and be biased in one way or another - watch PBS. If you don't want to listen to a moderator who is only interested in hearing himself talk, watch PBS. If you don't want to be subjected to guests talking over each other, watch PBS. If you want to watch the news and draw your own conclusions, watch PBS. If I want to watch biased chaos, I will flip the channel. I prefer to make up my own mind and very much appreciate PBS as a definitive alternative.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:12 AM	sharon : The news hour is honest and smart and I like to know more than the 30 or 60 second pieces of news that are on the other networks. My kids grew up on Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers and they actually learned good things from those programs. I don't mind the "sponsors and benefactors at the beginning of a program. I can get involved in a documentary,mystery or a drama knowing that I will not be bombarded every 15 minutes by ridiculous commercials for things I don't want or can never have. PBS doesn't break the flow..it respects it's viewers. Pretty much the only tv i watch comes from PBS/ KQED here in SF. What a question....of course we need PBS..thanks for being there

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:07 AM	Carry : The only good news show on broadcast television is Bill Moyers Journal. While I don't agree with Mr. Moyer's general political slant, he is the only journalist I actually have any respect for. Although I think I know his position on things, he seems to be dedicated to exposing the truth regardless of his personal position -- he is a professional. He actually uses his show to inform people and to examine questions that everyone else sweeps under the carpet. As for the News Hour, it may be ok by comparison to what is spewed out by the commercial networks, and it may win on style, but as for substance it isn't much better. While it is true that "news" on the commercial networks is watered down pablum, and somewhat biased towards the left (except for Fox which is thinly veiled Republican Party propaganda) that doesn't make the News Hour the shining beacon it is being described as here. The News Hour is dedicated to preservation of the status quo. The News Hour did no better than any of the rest in asking questions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, or the passage of the so-called "patriot" act or any of the rest of the dismantling of the Constitution. The coverage of the current presidential campaign has been little better than anywhere else. Just as on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc., We have been told who the "major" (i.e. establishment) candidates are and then they are the only ones given any significant coverage. The miniscule differences between their positions is then treated as enormous while candidates with truly different ideas are excluded. The justification being that there isn't enough time to spend on candidates who "can't win". I guess that explains why so much time was spent on Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thomson to the exclusion of certain other Republicans and Democrats. On the Feb. 21 broadcast, Mr. Lehrer flatly stated that there were only two candidates vying for the Republican nomination. This is factually wrong and either; demonstrates an inability to count, a very high level of journalistic incompetance, or an intentional attempt to influence the campaign. And we certainly will never hear any mention of ideas of third party candidates. Rather than coverage of issues, we get interviews with focus groups, and never ending horse-race coverage, with the viewers intelligence further insulted with the News Hour policy of referring to opinion as "analysis". Kawmi Holman is the best actual reporter and yet we see others much more often. Interviews are often little more than a venue for those with power to make a press release. The more powerfull the person being interviewed the more sycophantic the nature of the questions. Government officials are never called on blatant lies, or absolutely objectively demonstrable factual mistakes. As one example among many, the current secratary of state said in one interview that the continental U.S. had not been attacked in over 200 years. I think the burning of the capitol by the British during the war of 1812 counts as an attack. And although Paul Solman generally does a decent job, his piece on inflation and the CPI (Feb. 20) made absolutely no attempt to explain or even mention the root cause of inflation -- the Federal Reserve's non-stop "printing" of "money". The News hour may be better than the rest, but that just isn't saying very much despite what the love fest here suggests.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:05 AM	Lorettta H. Chivers : Jim Lehrer's news cast is far superior to that of ABC, NBC, or CBS or any of the news casts I have watched. It is unbiased as any news can be. It is presented clearly and without hype. Long live PBS and Jim Lehrer!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 01:04 AM	Robert Smith : At a time when our government can only be described as fascist and imperialist, The New York Times is asking if the most reliable news service in the United States, namely PBS, is necessary !!!!! ???????? To hell with the New York Times. They have been bought.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:59 AM	Elsa (Struble) : I listen to NPR when I'm working in the kitchen; I try to watch the News Hour every week night I'm home, plus Washington Week on Fridays. Radio is great for information, but I also like to see the scenes and people in the news. I rarely watch TV other than PBS; I'd watch more on PBS if I had more free time! As for Britsh comedy, I'm not tempted by reruns of "Keeping up Appearances" (like the Times) but I'm faithful to "As Time Goes By"!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:58 AM	Moira Breen : I watch Jim Lehrer's News Hour every night. It tries very hard to present all sides of the news in a quiet informative manner. The only TV stations I watch are PBS.org and C-span.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:55 AM	S. Stamper : PBS is a very important part of my daily informational system. My comments which follow deal with PBS in general and the NEWS HOUR in particular. Unbiased,timely news coverage. Excellant staff. Presents all sides of issues in detail.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:54 AM	klein klan : PBS is more relevant today than ever as we watch the other networks deliver mindless garbage and 30 second sound bites. It is the only channel that speaks truth to power and tells us, the viewer, what we need to hear not what we want to hear. Charles McGrath and the NYT ought to be writing editorials that support PBS rather than undermining it. Fred, Maria and Amalia

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:39 AM	Pete S. from Tarzana, California : PBS and its News Hour is the gold standard for responsible and in-depth television reporting. 90% of our TV viewing time is with PBS and we continue to support PBS as members for the past 25 years. For the NY Times to demean and attempt to degrade PBS is totally irresponsible. Two thumbs way up for Jim Leherer , Charlie Rose and the entire professional team at PBS.!!!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:34 AM	Jese Ray Tohu : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer the most Important and Trusted news source for me. I may get the election results on msn.com- but I can't get any credible insight and in-depth discussion anywhere else. I'd rather give up my myspace profile or my youtube account than the Newshour. I'm a 37 year old computer geek, and I don't get or want the New York Times!

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:33 AM	Edith Gordon : While some of the NYTimes' points about the aged reruns of British comedies are on the mark, I do not think there is a better or more balanced news program on UV than the Lehrer Report. Other channels give short shrift to international news, so I depend on the news hour to keep me posted on up-to=the minute news with visuals, from around the world. My favorite news show is Washington Week with moderator Gwen Ifel. I just wish the panel had more left-of-center participants. Maserpiece theater is still high on my to watch list, Bill Moyers Journal is exceptional.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:30 AM	Sandra : We've watched PBS and the News Hour for as long as they've been available, our alternative to mediocrity, superficiality and bias. Yes, PBS stations have fewer programs that we cherish because of funding cuts. But keeping PBS and The News Hour is critically important for all of us, not the least of whom are those without the wherewithall to afford cable. There are sufficient sops available for those who don't want indepth analysis and thoughtful exploration. Don't deny the rest of us our choice for quality.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:28 AM	John Womack : Professor Zazloski told us back in 1954, just after he had escaped from Hungary, in our class on political science in college at SIU, "First ting you do to study the news is to take the front page - and you throw it away! THEN you look through the real news buried in the paper, back in the back - THEN you stop and ask yourself questions." Professor Zazloski is long gone but PBS is going strong - going behind the sensational news and digging deeply and asking those critical questions. Where else can we go for this? There is the BBC, and the German News and one or two others, but PBS is America's last hope. John.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:20 AM	Vargas : PBS could be better if it had the money. If you give a cook $5.00 and then complain that he/she didn't come up with a Thanksgiving meal with all the trimmings for 20 people, wouldn't that seem an unfair complaint. I'm glad that on its budget PBS manages to come up with the Newshour. I contribute to my local PBS station and I wish more of my tax dollars went towards it.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:20 AM	Winston de Lugo : I watch the News Hour EVERY evening AND ESPECIALLY ON FRIDAY! If PBS didn't exist I'd have to get my news from several European stations because I don't trust the TABLOID journalism of the other US networks. PBS is class and integrity. It's amazing! - W. de Lugo

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:16 AM	Chris (Oregon) : The News Hour is the only news program on television where you hear unbiased reporting and intelligent discussion about both sides of important issues! My family watches every night. We also watch many of the other wonderful programs on Public Television.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:13 AM	Michael H. Miller : In the vast wasteland of television, PBS will always be necessary. Old shows, old newscasters are still better than the alternatives.PBS can be improved and should get more money. Nevertheless, even in its current form, the thought of eliminating the one Public Television channel is scary. All good things need not come to an end.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:06 AM	Jeffrey Heagerty : After reading the NYT-lite article (remember...Arts Section placement)...'tis mere fluff conjured up to meet a deadline. I'm surprised of the ado about nothing. The 'arrogance of enlightenment' is a badge of honor burdened by few (guilty)...and it's our job to spread the 1.4 neilson share forward in the world. I believe we've been more than effective in this pursuit, given the great lenghts Rove, et al, went to extinguish our vein of reasoning...as far as stacking the 'ol Corp. for Public Broadcasting chuck full of cronies...or atleast rumors has it. Nuff Said.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:03 AM	george plu : As a middle aged male afflicted with the disease of channel surfing and clicking the remote incessantly, i have been cured only by PBS programming. It's consistently relevant and always interesting.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:02 AM	Floyd and Jan Mellon : My wife and I are strong supporters of Public Television and have been for many years. We watch television only in the evenings and perhaps 95% of our time is with PBS. The News Hour is without peer as an unbiased, in depth, reporting of what is going on in the world. Great effort is taken to show both sides of the issue. That cannot be said for the commercial news broadcasts. The other programs that we watch on PBS are entertaining as well as informative. We will take “musty” to trivial and sensational any day. It seems that commercial television often goes out of the way to appeal to the basest part of our society. Last but not least, we do not appreciate our viewing being interrupted every few minutes by d___ commercials. As you know PBS places theirs at the beginning and end of the program. That alone is enough to make us fans. We feel that public television should receive more, not less, public funding and support. The demise of public television would be a sad thing indeed for our country.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:02 AM	dugert : Yes. Lets not get rid of "musty"newshour which is the ONLY show that presents all sides of current events by 2 or 3 impartial experts. By highlighting jim lehrer's age, the author indicates his soundbite mentallity. Obviously "handwringing" and classical literature is way too slow for many. but surely there can be room for shows that we "musty" viewers enjoy and can only get on pbs.

Posted: 02/22/08 at 12:02 AM	Vi Robertson : PBS is a VERY important source of quality programing. We watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer regularly. It is the only news source on TV with in-depth reporting that gives both sides of an issue.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:58 PM	BeenDrawn : Dear PBS, specifically Jim & Crew, The short answer to the NYT insult article posing as an analysis, is "Yes, PBS is still relevant, continues to be relevant, and often sets the standard for which commercial broadcasts aim, but fall short." Sincerely, BeenDrawn The longer answer still begins with "yes". One of the most annoying things to me when I watch "commercial" TV are fast scene cuts. It's like watching a strobe of photographs flash in staccato. I have nothing good to say about 99.99% of the advertisements, I pray for their souls, they are busy leading many people in to temptations for things they do not need, and in fact, are harmful. The people who want to see the death of PBS are often the same people who are destroying the intentions of the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and many other of our founding documents. They view their deep pockets as a reflection of how great they are, and despise the widow who gave her last penny, and the organization that got it. The writer points out that he has many other options available to him. Fine, he should watch them instead, and stop insulting you all. Not all of us can afford cable, and even when I could, I knew it wasn't worth it, PBS' offerings are so much better. I download and watch the video podcast of NBC Nightly News and it pales in comparison to The New Hour. I wish your show was also available as a video podcast. :-) I would much rather see a whole hour about an interesting subject on NOVA, Frontline, National Geographic Special, the News Hour, Bill Moyers, etc... than a three-to-five-sentence summary. I love much of what PBS has done and would gladly work for them in any of many capacities, maybe this should not be a surprise since I graduated in education and think that is one of the most important aspects of life. I was very happy to see (months ago) the show Jim hosted with regard to the public meetings discussing democracy and how our modern society could be viewed through our founding documents. This last 4th of July I was overjoyed to see Gwen hosting, my favorite next to Jim, (and I love Margaret too!), but I was seriously bummed out and almost wrote y'all, about my sadness of the video you showed of the woman saying she felt so patriotic when she saw soldiers in uniform (paraphrasing). For many decades I have done my best to read our founding documents on the 4th of July. If we, I feel, REALLY understood the 4th of July and the intentions behind it, there would be public readings of many of our founding documents on the 4th, and not the shooting of guns. I feel certain various entities are against this as they would sense more of the population learning what our founding values are, including no ex post facto law making to protect the guilty. But many people will ask, "What's 'ex post facto'?" So for decades I have desired to update the language of our founding documents. Recently I started. I invite people to this web site where they can download both the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution and update it themselves. I have begun updating the language of the former only. I have put the documents in a few file formats, but my intention is for others to try their hand at updating the language, not to just blindly accept my version of the updating wording. http://www.BeenDrawn.info/declarations_of_independence/ http://www.BeenDrawn.info/us_constitution/ PBS is relevant. The "founding fathers" did not pledge everything they did—to each other—so they could get rich, they made their pledges to each other for many of the same reasons PBS has in mind as they work to edify our country. Keep up the good work. Respectfully, BeenDrawn.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:52 PM	Charlene M. Smith : PBS is very important to me. I watch The Lehrer Report and Charlie Rose every night, and on Friday I watch Washington Week, Stepping Out, and Informed Sources. On Sunday I often watch Masterpiece Theater.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:50 PM	earl : PBS like the Jim Lehr news, so many other news features that you get a a better picture of the world -you save a lot of time for your personal needs.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:46 PM	Peter Wilmarth : I have sadly watched public television become increasingly dependent on corporate money and have watched commercial advertising claim an ever more prominent position in PBS programming. There are many many obvious, necessary reasons compelling public television to accept funding when it is available. But viewers are left wondering to what extent the programming and the independent editorial voice of PBS have been compromised by the influence of powerful sponsers. Forty years ago, commercial advertising would have been unthinkable on PBS. It is still at a level significantly below that found on network and cable broadcasting. But the difference seems smaller every year. I feel that the greatest challenge to preserving the unique distinction of public television will be maintaining it's "public" identity. This can best be achieved by minimizing the intrusion of corporate advertising and branding campaigns on programs. Realistically, major sponsers will insist on recognition for their contributions. I suggest that PBS return to the practice of providing no more than graphically neutral, narrated statements of appreciation (as are used for foundations and other, presumably "minor" sponsers). At one time, this was the maximum recognition accorded commercial sponsers. It's worth noting, even as I write this, that the comment page is festooned with the logos of Chevron, AT&T and Pacific Life Insurance. I feel that every second of corporate branding, provided by PBS, brings a corresponding loss to PBS' own brand and identity. I recomend a significant change in this unfortunate trend.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:45 PM	Walter & Elaine : PBS and, especially the News Hour, are an essential balance to the corporate controlled, profit driven media. Except for the Olympics, figure skating competitions and the America's Cup sailing competiton PBS is the only television worth watching. PBS and NPR are mainstay sources of information in our lives, no matter where we travel in the country. We've been viewers and supporters of our local stations for decades. If only PBS could receive the support that NPR did in the huge bequest it received we'd be even better off today. Yes, there now networks devoted to food programming. Would they have come into being with Julia Child having broken the ground on PBS? Over and over PBS has borken the ground now being tilled by the cable networks. We should be applauding and doubly supporting PBS in order that it can break new ground in the future while maintaining the roots it put down decades ago.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:44 PM	Mrs. Menagerie : I do not subscribe to cable services. I prefer to spend my money on supporting public television. I consider PBS a reliable source for world news, culture and the arts---all delivered without the hystrionics and distracting techflash that mark much of "mainstream" media programming. I read Mr. McGrath's article. Does he actually watch much public television? Mystery? NOVA? Masterpiece? Spark? Video i? Oh, and about Jim Lehrer, is it his age (a mighty youngish 73!) or (and this is more likely) his formidable personal integrity that makes him a target of Mr. McGrath's pettiness? Would that there were more newsmen such as Jim Lehrer. If that were so, I would then be watching other news programming in addition to PBS. Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:44 PM	Andrew J. Frank : The PBS is the most valuable programming that comes into our home - nearly the only programming we watch and depend upon for accurate, literate, inspiring substance. The broad range of information and culture that PBS provides enlivens our days and evenings. We trust the Lehr hour and Washington week to speak to us as adults. PBS is the 21st Century version of the 1940's CBS and then a great deal more. As Linus Puling used to say,"Thank you for being".

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:43 PM	Bettie : Does PBS run too many BBC oldies? Yes. Has anything on the other networks or on cable improved on or even matched The News Hour or Nova or consistently met the quality of Masterpiece Theatre? Absolutely not!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:42 PM	Dr. Judy Litterst : Absolutely PBS is necessary! It is the only place where news includes careful and thoughtful coverage of and discussion of issues by some of the most incredible and insightful experts. I am continually impressed by the expertise of the news staff who ask the right questions at the right times. My husband and I continually praise the News Hour and its staff and we bemoan the fact that network news has succumbed to advertisers' wishes to provide more sensationalism, fluff, and a light version of news. Without PBS to provide the news coverage that Americans need, we lose tremendously. And, without the marvelous shows like Nova, we fail to learn about our world and our environment. Yes, we are academics. But, if we do not stand strong for public television and public radio, we succumb to mediocrity. Sincerely, Dr. Judith Litterst Professor, Communication Studies St. Cloud State University and Dr. Lawrence Litterst Retired Professor of Economics College of St. Benedict

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:37 PM	Linda : PBS and NPR are our best media at this dark and getting darker hour in our nation and in the world. Yes, they are necessary!! They are both integral to me and give me hope that there really are still intelligent, thinking inhabitants on the globe.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:37 PM	Racine Marcus Brown : Yes, PBS is necessary. Perhaps the format in general could use some revamping (and a more generous budget), a reconnection with first principles stressing educational value and high quality, intellectually stimulating entertainment. That said, it's worth keeping even with it's current weakness solely on the merits of the News Hour, Washington Week, and Frontline.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:35 PM	Boulder Dave : Some of us remember the words of E. B. White when the concept of Public Broadcasting was first introduced: "Non–commercial TV should address itself to the ideal of excellence, not the idea of acceptability, which is what keeps commercial TV from climbing the staircase. . . I think TV should be providing the visual counterpart of the literary essay, should arouse our dreams, satisfy our hunger for beauty, take us on journeys, enable us to participate in events, present great drama and music, explore the sea and the sky and the woods and the hills. It should be our lyceum, our Chautaqua, our Minsky's and our Camelot." Unfortunately the money to realize this dream was never added to the -- but we should continue to dream, to hope for that day to come. Lord knows the commercial broadcasting industry will never reach such heights. And god knows the country could use a cultural lift!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:32 PM	Anne Griffiths : 1) The tone of the article was odd: Very strong opinions, weak supporting arguements. 2) I (with a few exceptions: eg., Sopranos, Jon Stewart, Mad Men) watch almost exclusively PBS, and know many others who do the same. (Are we so rare?) 3) Cuts in public television have already, and will increasingly, mean that some good programming (eg. from UK) will be increasingly sold to commercial stations, and shown with advertising, which destroys continuity/subtlety/mood... At least PBS advertised between programs, and not in the middle. 4) Do not most modern well-developed countries provide publicly subsidized television of high quality? Europe? Canada?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:31 PM	Larry : In the New York Times article Charles McGrath touted cable as having content superior to that on PBS as affirmed by the Nielsen ratings. This is a difficult or practically impossible comparison to make for most people simply because PBS is not included in the line-up of channels of many cable providers. Indeed, local TV broadcasts are often not included in cable service. This is the circumstance for a sister of mine who lives in Yakima, WA and has cable. Tuning in to PBS or any of the local TV stations would require them to physically disconnect their set from the cable box and connect the TV to an antenna that they don't have. Consequently, they don't watch PBS - or any of their local TV stations on the TV in the living room. As this circumstance likely exists in a large percentage of households that have cable, the Nielsen ratings are not a true measure of viewership unless they take this into account. I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. We have five over-the-air TV stations, one for each of the networks (PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX). In this market, both PBS and NPR are regularly viewed and heard by a large fraction of the population. Both PBS and NPR provide a tremendous service to this community that commercial broadcast, quite frankly, does not. This is particularly true when it comes to programming for children. Charles McGrath would do well to consider the number of children who have grown up with Sesame Street, for example. And please, Mr. McGrath, don't forget to include those children who live beyond our borders. In these markets, two puppets named 'Bert and Ernie' have done more to benefit US foreign policy (i.e. how others view us,) than any administration. The only federal program that does more to improve my health and well-being is the NIH. PBS is a close second. My sincere hope is that congress doesn't cut funding for either.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:31 PM	Martin & Lori Atrops : We've watched PBS 40 years. It's our #1 choice and now the only option left for TV. We're not interested in formulaic tripe that caters to the lowest common denominator. We are a smaller percentage of the USA, but we are highly educated professionals who pay the most in taxes. The federal government must respect our right to free, quality TV. Their funding of PBS should INCREASE. Cut Bush's budget for his personal staff. FTC, FCC have sold off the airwaves to the highest bidders and lost the intelligent, balanced core of this country.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:27 PM	Dave Roberts : I've been watching PBS for over 20yrs. If the NYT had that kind of reader loyalty would they currently be advertising for subscribers on TV.. ha ha ha.. i think not!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:26 PM	Patty H. : PBS is not only necessary, it is essential! We do not get cable, by choice, we very seldom watch network TV, by choice. By choice, we watch PBS for more than 90% of our viewing pleasure. Where else would we get the real news, the science shows, the broadway shows, the nature news and music like the blues, but on PBS. I think a few hours a day should be required viewing by all who have access.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:26 PM	John Starr. : I am an enthusiastic viewer of the News Hour and have been for many years. I prefer it to all Australian current affairs programs which are aggressive. It is a pleasure to see no fear of tough questions yet always a civilised manner on the part of your interviewers.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:25 PM	MARALYN & JACK : YES, PBS WITH IT'S QUALITY PROGRAMING IS NECESSARY. FROM THE JIM LEHER NEWSHOUR TO THE MASTERPIECE THEATER PLUS THE ADDITIONAL REGULAR AND SPECIAL PROGRAMMING, PBS IS PRETTY MUCH THE ONLY TELEVISION WATCHING FOR WE TWO 79 YEAR OLD SEATTLELITES. WE CAN NOT IMAGINE TV WITHOUT PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:21 PM	Ernie : The NYT confuses popularity with quality. The is no news coverage on commercial TV that has the depth and breath of the News hour. None of the commercial stations take the risk of offending to bring insight and fact to questions that Frontline and other PBS programs do. In a world where commercial TV long ago cut national and international news to half an hour and have consistently reduced resources devoted to news, it is difficult to believe any responsible person can say the demise of PBS would be anything but a very dark day for this country and its people. A democracy depends upon informed votes. While it may be true that all too few take full advantage of what PBS offers, its availablity non the less is a pillar of our freedom. I onlu wish that the various PBS stations serving an area would not broadcast competing types of programs, particularly new programs (e.g., The News Hour,BBC News and DW German and european news. Ernie Ernie

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:17 PM	Milton Marson : PBS is the best TV available to us among all the multiplicity of stations. And the Lehrer News Hour is the best news program on the air. The country would be poorly served if support for PBS was cut.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:10 PM	Randy Edwards (not afraid to give my own name on something as important as this) : PBS is a public resource that is irreplaceable. Are we to replace it with Fox News, or even ABC, CBS, or NBC? Those who would suggest that PBS is anything but an essential source of non-commercial (and hence, unbiased) source of truth in information have only one agend -- to eliminate truth and to control public thought.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:09 PM	Len : I think that PBS is absolutely neccesary. I watch the regular news and learn very little. Only PBS focuses on what is important and explores it in any detail. We are currently wasting billions on a war we didn't need, lets end the war and spend some tiny fraction on PBS, something that is critical to an informed democracy.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:08 PM	Jean Warriner : Of course the Newshour on PBS is necessary. It is commercial free. It is in depth on each topic. It does not reflect either a network's or a reporter's view, subtly or otherwise. I depend upon it every single day for my news!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:08 PM	minerva canavan : h00ray for pbs. The news hour is outstanding.I am also a fan of npr programs.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:08 PM	elizabeth : This relic has been watching the News Hour since it was a 30 minute program and now records it daily. My children have become avid viewers. A civil, informative tradition lives. Where do government and foreign leaders turn for thoughtful interviews to reach the American public? The industry considers the News Hour the most influential news show on television for a reason. And lets not forget NOVA, Frontline, Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, Ken Burns, Nature, and my cooking shows among many others. Viewers are passionate because they want quality television and want it to continue.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:07 PM	Doug and Liz : The News Hour presents the only balanced, analytical, thoughtful and responsible news reporting found on television. As Washingtonians and political aficionados (of opposing political parties) we have been known to stop everything to watch Shields and Brooks. May it continue far into the future.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:07 PM	Edward M. Cohen : PBS is virtually an oasis amid the general crass commercialism,inhuman violence, and smarmy smut on most other channels. My wife and I greatly appreciate the objective in-depth news, the superb nature programs, the delightful British sitcoms (why can't American sitcom producers come up with anything comparable to those?), the great musical performances, political interviews and discussions, etc., etc. One complaint, however: PBS has been showing ever more commercials. A main reason we pay for PBS is to be free of such annoying intrusions, with their often phony and always exaggerated claims. No doubt the revenue from them is appreciable, but it's tainted money--the trend should be reversed as sharply as is fiscally feasible.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:05 PM	Debbie : I have always disliked traditional television news, but I love the News Hour. It is interesting, intelligent, in-depth and blessedly free of fluffy celebrity pieces. The notion that Jim Lehrer is too old to anchor the News Hour is nonsense. I think all the reporters do an excellent job, but I am always disappointed when Jim Lehrer is "off tonight". Having said that, though, I could easily do without the rest of the programming on PBS. My local PBS station showed three hours of old Lawrence Welk shows one night recently. Hours of Suze Orman, etc. Masterpiece Theatre is nothing like it used to be. If you are looking for innovative, exciting, compelling programs--whether its mystery, drama, comedy, nature, history--you don't find them on PBS. You find them on cable. Everybody I know listens to and talks about public radio; nobody talks about public television anymore.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:04 PM	Nick Goldblatt : PBS is relevant to my life. My two preschoolers only watch shows on PBS, with a couple of exceptions, and I find that the best news shows on the air - Frontline, The Newshour with Jim Lehrer - are to be found on PBS. The Newshour is the only network news show that takes the time to cover the news in a thorough and unbiased manner, and I am a moderate conservative in my political and social outlook.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:04 PM	Steve F : PBS is absolutely necessary! The programs on PBS are very educational and make learning a form of entertainment. Other networks are filled with mostly useless, inane, same-old-junk sitcoms and crime dramas (still) or so-called "reality" shows, that exist only to sell products that are also mostly useless and a waste of money. I have been a member of PBS for 20 years, and would watch very little TV if not for PBS. And I have several other cable channels available includng local ones. The Newshour is unique for balanced reporting and is even more critical with highly biased FOX News reporting; NOVA and Nature have unparalleled amazing programs, more realistic than the Discovery Channel. American Experience contains far more than most ever learn in U.S. history classes. The music programs are simply not available on commercial channels. In a word, PBS is the best!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:01 PM	Mike : Since the retirement of Walter Cronkite the only news source on television that I have been able to trust and believe in has been PBS. Their balanced approach and unbiased vantage point has kept me abreast of this rapidly changing world. Commercial and cable television are so money oriented that you are never sure what you can believe. I firmly stand behind PBS, especially The News Hour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:00 PM	Jim & Erika : We are 70 year olds and have watched and listened to the public broadcasting programs for many years. The News Hour and Nightly Business Report are especially helpful and appreciated. They provide both in-depth and balanced coverage that is not available otherwise.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:58 PM	Phil Scott : The News Hour is the only news show we watch and we watch it regularly. We depend upon it for unbiased news. Local and network "news" is mostly about fires, floods and crime. PBS matters.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:58 PM	Philip Corn : Viewership is down because the quality of the programming has seriously deteriorated over the years. Masterpiece Theater is a joke and for PBS to rely on ballroom dancing, oldies shows and the like is a disgrace. MacNeil/Lehrer is the one shining light and my primary source for news. PBS should concentrate on theater, music, etc.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:55 PM	Ann Doolen : PBS offers the only programs worthy of watching on a regular basis. News is especially important in these fast-moving days...providing the in-depth details necessary for understanding how much the world changes in 24 hours. An intelligent society must work very hard to stay informed. PBS is the best tool, along with public radio broadcasts, for this purpose.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:55 PM	Mark Thomas : The NewsHour is an essential resource for a well informed public. It is critical to have a daily source for thoughtful and in-depth reporting and opinion. My wife and I depend on it. More broadly, PBS provides substantive and weighty programming that is uniformly excellent. Far from being unnecessary, PBS and the NewHour have never been more important.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:53 PM	Holly : I am a regular NPR listener and a Newshour viewer. While I agree with the comments that the Newshour is balanced and I trust the content, I also agree with the New York Times article that compared to NPR, The Newshour has become "stogy". The stories on All Things Considered are riviting and vivid. The Newshour, on the other hand, primarily uses in-studio interviews that are balanced, but rarely riviting or vivid. The Newshour's expertise is conducting tough and hard hitting interviews of prominent people (Bush, Bhutto, Mucasey most recently) contextualized with lead-in pieces. But frequently a potentially powerful interview comes across "stogy". For example, in the last 2 days, both the Newshour and NPR aired pieces about old recordings about to be re-released (not the most exciting events): NPR did the 86 CDs of Glen Gould and the Newshour did "Eyes on the Prize". Surprisingly the Gould piece made the old recordings and the artist seem contemporary, while Julian Bond's interview comment that students today should watch "Eyes" because they'd know how much better they have it today than their elders did seemed "stogy" even though Gwen Ifel's questions were hard hitting. "Eyes" was not framed in terms of contemporary issues of post-Katrina or extraordinary incarceration rates of African American men or the high school drop out rates of African Americans in poor urban areas, so the piece lacked relevancy -- no contemporary "Prize" was suggested, but merely the implication that it had already been done and it was now just dusty history. While the Newshour situates pieces such as Richard Rodrigues's essays and the recent pieces by Ray Suarez on education, it often does not use the television medium to its advantage. Kudos for fairness, balance and toughness, but the Newshour needs to kick it up a notch. If the old radio medium can make an All Things Considered interview seem vibrant and still maintain its balance and fairness, the power of high-definition tv with the talent of the staff at the Newshour surely can.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:52 PM	G,I,&P. : PBS programs are educational, thought provoking and exciting. That helps me gain some insight into this mad, mad world we live in. That's why PBS needs to exist and grow!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:50 PM	Chuck Graves : To us PBS is the major station we watch. It provides the content and intellecual challenge that is important to us and provides insight into the world news that other channels don't routinely follow! It channels our attention into the areas that we enjoy whereas the broad spectrum of programing on other channels-other than Cspan--is often unenlightening,crass and generally a waste of time.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:49 PM	seattleJED : Marcia Coyle, Jeffrey Brown, Judy Woodruff, Margaret Warner, Gwen Ifill, Jim Lehrer and Ray Suarez are all people that I would invite to my home to discuss the issues of the day and drink too much wine with. They all give of the impression of being authentic professionals and, unless I'm missing something, they all seem to respect each other and work hard to keep the viewership informed in a way that Thomas Jefferson would have hoped that an enlightened American electorate would be. With all the pseudo-news that is clogging the air waves these days, the manner in which they discharge their duties as reporters is essential for the health of our democracy and a welcome respite from the cult of personality on other broadcast media. Much praise and many thanks to "The Nightly News Report" for not being info-tainment.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:47 PM	Duane Chicoine : The recent New York Times article regarding PBS's relevancy is completely absurd. PBS has so many programs that are head and shoulders above anything available anywhere else on television. The quality of the vast majority of other TV presentations is getting worse at an alarming rate. Without PBS, I'd hate to imagine how bad total TV quality would become.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:46 PM	milt kruger : i watch the newshour nightly and find it the most comprehensive and insightful news program on 'network' television. The commercial television and cable alternatives and driven by ratings and pander to the view that news should be entertainment rather than news. I am very glad that I don't hear about Lindesy Lohan and Brittany Spears on the newshour, because in the reality of this world they are irrelvant. The newshour provides an objective and insiteful look at world events that, outside of the BBC worldcasts, provides us with the necessary information to make intelligent political and economic decisions. Yes, NPR and the Newshour are relevant, and much more valuable than all of the 'network' newscasts with 'pretty' people who have the journalist credibility of a someone who reads the news rather than investigating and reporting it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:44 PM	Stogie - Pens : Mama said - - "Always tell the truth !" Commercial networks feed us candy & junk food 'cause that's what advertisers know draws viewers. PBS' NewsHour w/ Lehrer offers a diet from the Food Pyramid--yeah!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:42 PM	Nancy : PBS and NPR are absolutely necessary! The high quality programing of public radio and television are critical for an informed public. It is impossible to imagine that we could be dependent upon commercial TV and Radio -- the likes of FOX, CNN, NBC, ABC and CBS as the only source of major daily news would be tragic. The Republican political machine would take great pleasure in controlling all of the national and international news. I strongly support public radio and television with my dollars - the best investment that I can make as a responsible citizen. Thanks PBS and NPR for your great work.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:37 PM	Roberta : I'd be lost without the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. Where else could I get all sides of an issue debated in a civil manner?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:32 PM	Madhukar N Shah : In today's highly commercialised TV PBS is more relevant than ever before. I have not seen such high quality programs consistently and in so much quantity on any coomercial TV . The Jim Lehrer News Hour is par excellence in coverage and quality and there is hardly any other newscast that can come close to its high quality. We not only need to have PBS as it is but We need to give it more support and expand it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:31 PM	K M Redoutey : I watch the NewsHour every night that I am home. When I lived along a long time ago, it offered me a way to get in touch with the world events during the day. Now that I am alone again, I have come back to watching it. Over a 20 year span, in my life,I find it still combines integrity with insight and the interviews are all worth watching. Really Jeffrey Brown's work too. But all are worth watching. of daily events.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:31 PM	Tom Libby : PBS is a h... of a lot more necessary then than the Times or any other paper that depends on ads to stay alive.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:30 PM	Charles Canfield Brown : I'm a liberal and support PBS, but find your claim that your programming is unbiased to be a bit ludicrous. The only somewhat right wing program I can recall was the Wall Street Journal and it only lasted a short time. Surely David Brooks is more of a pussycat than a convincing advocate of conservative views. I, for one, would welcome hearing more conservative viewpoints aired, if only to strengthen or modify my opposing arguments

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:30 PM	chazy : The News Hour is the most expert and most trusted source of TV news in the US. It dwarfs the competition. The same can said of PBS's documentaries and its coverage of the performing and fine arts.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:29 PM	Tania H. Selden : I love my local newspaper the Valley Times, and my PBS station. They are part of my daily life. I would gladly pay double to keep them. Watching TV programming I can trust for accuracy, with essentially no ads, is a delight. The NewsHour is the only place on TV that I can get news coverage in depth that is also balanced.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:26 PM	NewsHour Believer : The NewsHour is the only source of news I trust. As a 37-year old man, my partner and I actually became more interested in news once we discovered Jim Lehrer and his crew about five years ago. Without their vigorous reporting and exciting debates about the most important and interesting events of today, we would be left with the ridiculous and preposterously sensationalized choices of national and cable news shows. This important source of credible information and discussion of America's most relevant issues, presented in a straightforward and substantive way, is vital to an informed citizenry. And who else but Jim Lehrer could lend smart, intelligent integrity to presidential debates, especially when compared to the appalling fluff-news personalities who've served as moderators in recent primary challenges. More money for PBS!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:25 PM	LGriffin : The News Hour brought my attention to the Times article. I went to the Times web site and briefly viewed the article, I wasn't able to leave a comment there. Is this McGrath(?) really credible, in one sentence is says PBS funds are to be cut, in the next he says there is nothing new. Duh!!! Further on he says PBS has copied Ballroom Dancing that's on prime time. Did he bother to research anything. I'm not a ballroom dancing fan, but I can certainly remember it on PBS than I can in prime time. This is the same conservative BS that I hear from my conservative friends about "Now", "Frontline", "Bill Moyer's Journal", and the "News Hour". I sure wish I could thank my high English teacher for teaching Media, Journalism, and propaganda. We need some good Liberal commentary BS to rebut this Conservative BS, is there any??

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:24 PM	Rachel Zenk : yes, we watch pbs almost exclusively. Have considered cancelling the cable as we seldom look st any of the other probrams.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:24 PM	Kerry T in Springfield, MA : I have been a regular viewer of The News Hour since its inception as The McNeil Lehrer Report in 1975, relying on it on television, and in recent years online, for in depth reporting on everything from dinosaurs, to poetry, to politics and international affairs, to an accurate accounting of war dead. Each weekday evening, I watch a network "news" broadcast, then turn to The News Hour to find out what's really going on. The news summary often covers more material than the entire network broadcast I've just watched. The newsmaker interviews, the Economics reports, the environmental coverage (recent reports on the be crisis spring to mind) far surpass the superficial and sensationalistic coverage on network and cable news programs. As a writer and amateur musician, I appreciate The News Hour's Arts reports. And, as a lifelong political junky, I relish the policy and foreign affairs discussions as well as the political coverage. I am blind, unable to read a daily newspaper. For many years, The News Hour took the place of that absent newspaper. Even now, with the vast amounts of news and commentary available to me on the Internet, I still rely on The Online News Hour for accurate, thoughtful and trustworthy reporting. Together with the BBC, The News Hour is the online news source that I use most frequently and trust most firmly. The discovery that there is a question of the continuing relevance of The News Hour shocked me. For myself, I shall continue to rely on Lehrer and co. as long as they remain on the air and the web. I hope and trust that will be another thirty-eight years at least.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:22 PM	Louis H. Mayo : We are suporting and contributing members of PBS because of the excellant programs and quality entertainment. It would be a tragic mistake not to have it. For the most part,PBS is the only station worth watching! Louis & Doraine Mayo

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:22 PM	Cinder : PBS must continue. The broadcasting on PBS is the best the airwaves have to offer. I only watch PBS & my local news. The Newshour can't be beat for in depth reporting of complex issues.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:20 PM	Mike Vaughan : PBS is definitely still necessary and relevant. I know that I am representative of millions of Americans who depend on programs like the News Hour to provide them with access to informed views on all sides of the important,complex issues that face us as citizens and voters. There really is no practical alternative source of this information for those of us who don't wish to spend our lives reading blogs. At least in my part of the country local and regional newspapers have become useless regarding national and international issues.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:19 PM	Sandra Mc Clarnon : PBS is the only television program that my family and I trust to give unbias information. It is informative and allows the viewer to makeup our own mind without being brainwashed. This is is the program I tune to when I get off work for important information regarding our economy and politics. Yes!!!! We need more programming like PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:16 PM	Sierra : I would like to add my appreciation of PBS to the positive comments of everyone else. I grew up watching WGHB in Boston and now I watch KQED in San Francisco. I especially love watching The News Hour! What a fantastic program. Washington Week, Nightly Business Report, Masterpiece, Nova, Nature, Frontline, etc... My life is richer for these programs. And I refuse to pay for cable, so I'm grateful for the quality that is available on PBS. Thanks!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:15 PM	May G. Kennedy, Ph.D., M.P.H. : Public television's News Hour is one of two media means of expanding the range of my eyes, ears and understanding of issues. The other is the New York Times. The pity is that there aren't more high-resolution lenses on our complex reality, not fewer. I'm very, very busy with a fairly new academic job. Without Jim Lehrer's news summary and the inside front page of the NYT, people like me would suffocate in monofocus. Let media survival be a meritocracy -- long may you both reign!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:15 PM	Stephanie Evans : I am a woman in her mid-thirties who was raised in a family that watched PBS almost daily. I grew up watching "Nature", "NOVA", and "Masterpiece Theatre". Is PBS still relevant? Absolutely! Are there other cable channels out there that provide quality programming, like the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, the History Channel? Yes, but do you know why they exist? Because PBS set the standard for high-quality, intelligent programming. As for the "Newshour", I look forward to getting home on time each night to watch it. I think Jim Lehrer and his team are fantastic. I actually want to watch the news each night because of this program. I cannot remember which news channel has the "fair and balanced" slogan, I think it is Fox, but in my opinion there is not a more fair and balanced presentation of the news than on the "Newshour". It is the best news program on TV period, and, in my humble opinion, the other major networks could take a few notes from their page.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:10 PM	Donna Riser : Yes, there most certainly is a critical need for continuing PBS programming, especially the The News Hour. While many of the NY Times' points are valid, they only highlight the need for more support for this national treasure. Where would we be without at least one reliable news source willing to dedicate the time to in depth exploration of meaningful stories coupled with intelligent debate of the issues. While most news shows on other channels seem to be evolving to trend driven, infotainment, The News Hour offers night after night of thorough and absorbing reporting that does not pander to commercial interests or prurient tastes.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:09 PM	Beckym : I have watched PBS programing for 30+ years now, starting with watching Sesame Street with my children that are now grown. I love the newshour and started watching it in Texas in 1985, I now live in Calfornia and still watch it for the even balance and dissimination that it brings to every subject it covers. I have especially appreciated having the Newshour to watch for Campaign coverage as I refuse to watch the other media which insults my intelligence. PBS not needed? Are you out of your mind?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:09 PM	James Griffin : I believ P.B.S. is our one last chance at truth.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:08 PM	Elly : The News Hour is my favorite TV program. Jim lehrer and his wonderful colleagues are excellent interviwers. What a blessing to hear articulate people discussing the news of the day as well as larger issues. So many other programs are unbearable with their impolite, loud, interrupting 9so called) pundits.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:08 PM	lori atwood : Presentations on PBS are unbiased as most have noted but also have such an array of topics and are presented without the ads and sensationalism of network shows. I feel I can try to understand and think about topics better with this presentation. All the reporters and support staff on the Jim Lehrer News Hour, I feel, could be held up as examples of what Journalists and The Media can give to citizens and interrested people - essential components of Democracy. Public Radio is the next best thing to going back to school - WAMU is one of the benefits of living in D.C. metro. region. Tax $ in this sagging Republic is much better spent on Public Broadcasting of both sorts than the Military-Industrial machine.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:08 PM	seabury lyon : Subject: NYT OP-ED, 2/17/08: "Is PBS Still Necessary"? In any fair comparison to commercial radio and TV the real value of PBS to American culture and citizenship is revealed. Our American PBS is truly civic minded and serves American democracy better than any other national source of radio and television content. PBS provides excellent news, investigative reporting, science and public affairs information that is truly independent of commercial or government influence and is indispensable to the deliberations of an “informed electorate”. It’s community outreach provides world class kids shows, classes in job skills and GED, local politics, sports and human interest. Return in investment is huge and expanding. To be sure, local PBS content can vary greatly as it is vulnerable to budgetary conditions as well as influences from cultural, political, and even religious entities. It is therefore not feasible or useful to attempt an accurate generalization on a national scale. In the 2nd to last paragraph of his article McGrath mentions "trolling", a word that aptly characterizes his article. It was a gross exaggeration of the jabs and ridicule heard from PBS detractors. “Elitist”? What does that mean in this context; “informed” perhaps? McGrath’s piece is wrong and serves only to propagate unfair stereotypes and to poison the well of public opinion and support for a treasured resource. Seabury Lyon Bethel, Maine

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:06 PM	Clarity : PBS is the sole reason I pay $38.99 per month for cable TV. Our mountains prevent our receiving the signal directly. KCTS9 has been a pioneer in the area of public television and has been a staple in my family's life. Even when deeply contentious issues are explored, the individuals participating and the level of discourse would be welcome in my livingroom in real life. In addition to The News Hour I particularly value Bill Moyer's program and Nature.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:05 PM	Jay : I grew up watching Jim Lehrer's News Hour. In a mixed family of Democrats and Republicans, we all felt confident we could get substantive information from this news program. The News Hour is without peer in American television news. Witness, for instance, Margaret Warner's coverage of Pakistan's tumultuous politics, the regular analysis of the Supreme Court's activities, and Paul Solomon's illustrative pieces on the economy. Further, no other American news program interviews experts with such varied perspectives, in an unbiased fashion, and in enough depth to adequately explore each topic. These skillful interviews enable the involved viewer to gain perspective on complex world events. As an adult, I continue to rely on these insights each weekday.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:03 PM	Sarah : I'm saddened by the attitude portrayed in this article. The value of PBS is not to be measured by how well any given program does against programs on the commercial networks, but by the value of the whole collection. The point of public television is not to cater to the lowest common denominator, as others tend to; the programs which run on PBS are very diverse and each one would not necessarily hold interest for great masses of viewers...and that is the point. Some people may like to watch Nova or Frontline, while others might tune in just for the opera programs, or perhaps for Mystery, or the News Hour (and by the way, that has become the only sane place to get news on TV these days). It is the collective value of all these things which makes PBS special: something for everyone. Asking each of these programs to compete with the commercial networks for ratings is not the point--it would mean "dumbing down" PBS just like the rest of television, just to attract the higher numbers and keep the advertisers happy. Forgive me, but we have enough of that already. And I strongly dispute the idea that cable networks like the Discovery and History channels replace or do better than traditional PBS fare. Whenever I make the mistake of tuning into one of their programs, most of what I see is sensationalist garbage, and the moment you think something interesting might happen, there's a big long commercial, followed by several minutes of reviewing the same garbage we presumably just forgot. We live in a society which seems to have trouble paying attention to anything for more than thirty seconds, and those of us who abhor this new way of doing things need PBS to retain our sanity! PBS is a wonderful resource and a great value for the tiny percentage of taxpayer dollars that it takes to run. No more cuts, please...and no more interference; PBS is doing just fine without it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:00 PM	tim : Not relevant?? In my opinion, PBS is the ONLY relevant television of all the networks.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:00 PM	Jenny : PBS news is unique in the depth of coverage of items, the including people from many sides of issues in presenting issues. I use Google news and read BBC and Reuters and New York Times for news and also really appreciate the 2 or three stories with in depth focus that occur on the News Hour. I also really like listening to Morning Edition and All Things Considered as I commute. I like it so much I have been a member supporting my public broadcasting stations for over 20 years. To lose these resources would make me a less informed citizen.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:59 PM	Paula and Keith : In the wasteland of television PBS is an oasis...intelligent, probing, far-ranging. Without Lehrer Report where would one go for indepth, intelligent news?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:59 PM	Andy : We watch the Newshour almost nightly, and consider it a primary source of news. I especially appreciate the special reports on the economy, education, environment, etc, as well as reports from Independent Television News.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:59 PM	Kris M : I wouldn't watch television if it weren't for PBS. All the rest of it is corporate garbage.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:58 PM	Bhavani Kludt : PBS is the only TV station I watch. I appreciate the depth and presentation of opposing views. It is intelligent without sensationalism and entertainment as its focus. Informing and education is critical to our democracy and PBS is the only place where I find this.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:58 PM	Nancy T. Rockwell : I watch PBS regularly. Jim Lehrer's News Hour is the only program that gives more than 30 seconds to the important issues. Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio host the best programs on the air. I enjoy Washington Week,which is hosted with wit and intelligence--and just a bit of humor. Expose, which has, unfortunately, been shifted to Tuesday nights, is fascinating. The commentator for the NYT should reread his column to see just how silly it is. He claims that PBS doesn't get enough money to air as many good programs as it should. The remedy, it seems to me, would be to increase its funding, not to dismiss it by calling it irrelevant. The Bush administration has severely short-changed the American public. I guess the NYT commentator had to produce 1000 words or so--and just felt a little cranky that day.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:57 PM	Fran : We organize our day around being able to view the News Hour which provides us with both national and international news that is not available through our California local newspapers or television channels.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:55 PM	James Arnett : Please stop comparing PBS to the New York Times! PBS journalistic standards are awesome!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:55 PM	Elizabeth Dyer : THe only reason we have a TV is because of public TV, KNME here. My son does not watch anything but PBS childrens' programming-even though we would allow him to watch some other channel. Charlie Rose, all the McNiel reporters (Gwen Ifill is my idol)BBC news are so much more substansive. Just compare the PBS Democratic debate questions to the B.S. Wolf Blitzer was churning out the other night. We all know about the shame of "fair and balanced" Fox News. Ick Public TV gives you thought provoking shows in a noncommertialized format-Nova, Frontline, POV, NOW, Nature. Ilove it. Other cable channels force you to sit through endless drivel.."THis is what we're going to tell you" -then commercials for 5 minutes, then 5 more minutes of "this is what we already showed you and after the next commercial we'll maybe get to one tiny point of the show." Reality TV is embarrassing for all involved. What a waste of an evening. So Mr. NYT reporter, if your intent was to get people fired up about defending public TV- it worked. If you were expressing your true feelings about it, then you are just a product of the shallower edge of our cultural pond

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:54 PM	John Cote : The Lehrer News Hour is the only news on TV that's worth watching.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:53 PM	Peter : for those of us who do not have (or wish to) cable or satelite TV, PBS is very necessary...not all its fare may be good, but its head and shoulders above CBS, NBC, and ABC...those stations are mostly advertisement, sound bites, and crap.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:52 PM	Arnie : The events since 9/11/01 demonstrate how easily public opinion can be manipulated and therefore how crucial the role of the independent voice of PBS. Before the invasion of Iraq it was only on PBS that one could hear experts who openly questioned the wisdom of the invasion. Without a non-commercial source for news and in-depth analysis, I fear for the future of our democracy and for the world I leave to my grandchildren.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:52 PM	sally windecker : Is it still relevant? It's even more relevant than ever!! The narrower commercial news sources become, the more important are sources less beholden to the ever-growing power and influence "military-industrial complex" Eisenhower so long ago predicted. Public television and radio are, to me, the only newsworthy beacons of light!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:51 PM	Ken Dinwiddie : PBS offers one of the few venues for unbiased, extended coverages of significant current events and issues. We rely on The News Hour every evening to provide the most objective and articulate reporting available.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:49 PM	Barbara Noblin : With so much broadcasting owned by a small group of corporate interests, where else can people turn for fair and comprehensive news. We watch the News Hour nightly and get informed in depth about issues which may get a 30-second mention on other news outlets. PBS is the primary channel we watch, not only for news, but for arts, science, technology and a host of issues barely covered on other channels. I can't imagine television without PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:47 PM	Bob : PBS's News Hour may very well be the last bastion of credible, unbiased, informative news. The program Frontline exhibits quality journalism as well. If the public were to lose PBS, all that would remain would be biased propaganda projected by FCC approved, ever-homogenizing, ever-consolidating media outlets which are owned by a select few. Those elite few will naturally seek to advance their own agenda via contrived communications to the masses. If anyone does not take serious the loss of news which champions the reveal of real truths and which vigorously guards the true freedom of the press, that individual may want to revisit how Hitler came to power by twisting and manipulating the truth. There is grave danger to the preservation of our fundamental freedoms if the "real" voices of the public (such as PBS) are suppressed and ultimately stifled. A knee-jerk reaction coupled with fear-mongering has already resulted in much of the public's privacy being eliminated through the use of warrantless wiretaps. Are we willing to sacrifice additional freedoms by our apathy? Our freedom losses can occur in very subtle and sly ways like a thief in the night. If the public wants to preserve its freedoms, it must be ever diligent to the smokescreens and underlying actions that serve to alter or remove those freedoms. PBS existence is not only relevant, but it's absolutely essential to our Democracy. Therefore, I say to the public, "Stand up for the preservation of PBS."

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:45 PM	Jeff Morgan : It's necessary for us. If the TV is on at our house there's better than a 90% chance that it's tuned to PBS. Where else are we going to find programming like the Lehrer News Hour, Nova, Masterpiece Theater, Mystery?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:44 PM	James Kenley : Yes, more than ever. My wife and I, in our seventies, are regular viewers of The NewsHour. We are confident that it is worth our financial support as are other PBS programs. TV worth viewing. Cspan2, the book reviews are like an hour in college. PBS, Link TV and CNN programs make up most of our regular viewing.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:42 PM	seabury lyon : "Is PBS Still Necessary"? In any fair comparison to commercial radio and TV the real value of PBS to American culture and citizenship is revealed. Our American PBS is truly civic minded and serves American democracy better than any other national source of radio and television content. PBS provides excellent news, investigative reporting, science and public affairs information that is truly independent of commercial or government influence and is indispensable to the deliberations of an “informed electorate”. It’s community outreach provides world class kids shows, classes in job skills and GED, local politics, sports and human interest. Return in investment is huge and expanding. To be sure, local PBS content can vary greatly as it is vulnerable to budgetary conditions as well as influences from cultural, political, and even religious entities. It is therefore not feasible or useful to attempt an accurate generalization on a national scale. In the 2nd to last paragraph of his article McGrath mentions "trolling", a word that aptly characterizes his article. It was a gross exaggeration of the jabs and ridicule heard from PBS detractors. “Elitist”? What does that mean in this context; “informed” perhaps? McGrath’s piece is wrong and serves only to propagate unfair stereotypes and to poison the well of public opinion and support for a treasured resource. Seabury Lyon Bethel, Maine

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:38 PM	Allen Mirk : PBS, with its in-depth and thought-provoking programs, will be necessary for as long as we are interested in sustaining an educated and informed citizenry. To suggest otherwise, at a time when Americans seem to have reawakened to their stake and responsibilities as citizens and are reaching out for unbiased information and analysis on the state of the country and the world, is ludicrous.(With apologies to whoever wrote these words earlier, but I could not say it any better.)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:36 PM	Ann : I have been watching PBS since I can remember [I'm now 15 years old] and I think that it is a very valuable asset to Americans, especially ones who value substantive programming that is not just there for entertainment. While I will acknowledge that the Discovery and History channels do a good job with a lot of educational programming, it's still packed with commercials. And, a big disadvantage for some who would rather spend money on other things than TV service, it costs money, while PBS is free to anyone with a TV and a receiver. While it has many of the same programs that it has had, that's because they're tried and true and are worth still airing. On the subject of endorsement ads, they may be there, but that shows that there are companies willing to support PBS shows where the government, and apparently some viewers, are not so inclined. While they may be commercials of a sort, at least they aren't interruptions in the middle of the programs. Also, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer is a news show unlike anything else on TV today. They tell news in a fair and comprehensive way that doesn't sensationalize the news like network shows do. While some people may not be able to get their dose of entertainment television from watching PBS, I believe that it is definitely worth funding and is a valuable resource for those of us who want stimulating, intellectual, non-sensationalized TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:36 PM	vinoveritas : yes, very important and relevant

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:34 PM	Helen Melay : PBS -- Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose, Jim Lehrer, Frontline, etc., are my lifeline. What passes for news on so many TV shows is so biased or so juvenile. I depend on PBS to be truly informed. Thank you PBS and NPR. Helen Mealy

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:33 PM	Tom Ankner : I am responding to the New York Times article on your site, because I could not figure out how to do it on the Times' site. I think PBS is more relevant than ever. As the rest of television gets worse, PBS maintains the standards of an earlier, more responsible era. It has resisted the dumbing down of American society by creating and airing high-quality, thoughtful news and entertainment programming. The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is THE BEST news program on TV. It is the ONLY place on TV today to get substantial, detailed coverage of the most important issues and events of the day. PBS is also the only network that would air something like The War, the recent documentary by Ken Burns. Nowhere else on television is long-form journalism like that aired. The entertainment programming on PBS offers an alternative to what is offered on the other networks. Is PBS still relevant? Yes. More than ever.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:31 PM	Roger and Alice Sackett : We would be devastated without PBS. Just about the only truly adult station, not counting, of course, the excellent program for children. We need a sane, balanced TV station.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:30 PM	Ruth : Necessary??!! ... ESSENTIAL to any quality of life ...is PBS ...(could say is to broadcast world as is NYT .. usually .. to print journalism). NEWSHOUR, in particular, the sole source anymore for sane, civil, thotful and balanced discussion of all sides of the many complicated, vital issues confronting us in this turbulent world ...especially as we choose our next President in the coming months. So much hinges on our collective decision ...not one to be made on basis of soundbites and dueling talking heads that are standard fare on other networks. What were you thinking NYT?? Or not.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:30 PM	Dale : Yes, the Public Broadcasting Network (PBS) is still necessary. Where else can we find interesting shows to watch? Commercial television appeals to a segment of our society that does not include our family. We're happy to pay our annual membership dues, which are a great value. Thanks for the service you provide to our society, keep it up.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:29 PM	Carl : We need PBS to open the eyes and ears for Americans.The Big Business ownership of all the other stations has created poor communications. Big Business only wants us to hear one side of the story. Many in Congress should be proposing a larger budget for PBS and not cutting. It is hard to locate leadership in Congress. We sure have not had it at the White House. Thank You for your time and consideration.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:27 PM	Trusty Friend : Let’s consider Girl Scout cookies. They are an American tradition, more than 80 years old – kind of like Jim. So how do these cookies relate to American tradition; they are kind of like presidents. As you read this, are you picturing the crisp, thin, yet fresh thin mint? I thought so. And what great figure in the media today does this cookie remind you of? None other than my favorite candidate and your favorite cookie: Barack Obama. And what about those Samoas? Quite the messy history right, giving the thin mints a run for their money: kind of like Hillary Clinton. And then there are the ones that go stale, with the white, flaky dough resembling none other than… John McCain. Right now, you are probably fretting, trying to remember what other kind of cookies there are. Well, you forgot those Do-si-Dos, filled with peanut butter –the cookies that stick to your teeth, but you still forget they are there: yup, Jon Edwards. So let’s not forget Jim or the News Hour or those Tag Alongs he exposes, like Bush. Fox News needs to go, not the News Hour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:27 PM	Susan : PBS is necessary to me. My TV is old, runs on rabbit ears and ONLY receives the local PBS station. I watch 7 hours each week - 5 of them are the Newshour with Jim Lehrer (always better when Jim is there and especially nice when on Friday with commentators Mark Shields and David Brooks) and .5 with Gwen Ifill on Washington Week. The other 1.5 is pure entertainment on Sat eve. I don't get a newspaper,so I never know what is going on locally, but I always have a good handle on topics that have far-reaching import to the nation. Often when current events come up in discussions with my brother, I find that he has only heard one side: I have heard both. When a case is heard by the Supreme Court, I learn what the issue is. But most important, the reporters on the Newshour are scrupulous about keeping their private opinions to themselves. Contrast that with a now-deceased anchor from ABC who lit up like a Christmas tree when he mentioned Regan and commented from the newsdesk. Yes, we need PBS for an independent view.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:26 PM	George : PBS is not only necessary, but also a must to me. It provides independent views to the incidents from all over the world. If its views are not perfect, they are much neutral. Not like NY Times, far too left; not like ABC, NBC, or CBS, they seem neutral, but not quite. I like Jim Leher's news hour and watch it everyday. It gives me the deep insight analysis without any emotional opinions. I support PBS. I hope NY Times and other left wing media do better job. NY Times recently published an article, "A Glimpse of Chinese Culture That Some Find Hard to Watch”, which is against a Chinese show. This article is very biased and intentionally ignore the positive feedback. I really do not like its view at all.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:24 PM	Anthony : In this constantly eroding world of 30-second-sound-bite "news", The News Hour stands tall among the few resources that help inform the nation of its happenings. This is especially important, as the retraction of print media continues with no end in evidence. Corporate media continues to launch whatever efforts it can to insinuate its 'in-your-face' commercial assaults on every aspect of our lives, from cable television to the toilet paper dispenser in public rest rooms. They have ruined the internet with comercialization and they will not rest until they commercialize or eliminate PBS. We simply must not stand for it!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:24 PM	Jim Pearson, Kaysville Utah : PBS is the only TV on the air that is independent. Without it, I fear, Americans will lose their sense of the meaning of independence. Generations ago independence was much more appreciated than it is now. We should cherish every aspect of it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:23 PM	Peter Budetti : If it weren't for TiVo and The NewsHour we would be getting all of our news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. The core values of PBS are absolutely necessary -- independent, intelligent, in-depth treatment of complex issues. Not all of Jim Lehrer's original viewers are in assisted living; some of them are hosting 60 Minutes. The morning and evening news shows on the various networks barely pretend to be news shows anymore, they are sensationalized entertainment shows filled with shocking videos and teasers about what they are going to tell you next. Sure, PBS -- like the NY Times itself -- could benefit from ongoing renewal. Yes, the solution is more money to bring in even more talent across the board. Without PBS, television would be further reduced to the lowest common denominator. Rampant banality may attract more viewers but is yet another sign of the troubling state of our society.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:21 PM	Christine Dominguez : PBS is THE only place for news. This news station has always emphasized quality reporting, thoughtful interviews and a 360 degree perspective. I would be lost without it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:21 PM	Molly L. Walter-Burnham : PBS holds the very best of American television. Without PBS, the intelligence as well as the delight of American viewers would be sadly diminished if not dangerously muted.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:20 PM	Jean Hiatt : Public Television is very important in my life. My husband and I especially rely on the Jim Lehrer News Hour and Washington Week. PBS news gives us thoughtful and indepth news reporting which is as unbiased as is possible. They strive to provide interviews and comments from people of varying viewpoints on the issues. We do not have cable TV and feel very fortunate to have access to this excellent service. The documentaries and series like Frontline are so enlightening. TV News on the commercial stations has deteriated in quality; it provides very little information of substance and has become more sensationalized. We are very grateful for this wonderful service!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:17 PM	Mark : I watch several news programs during a typical day, and find the major stories by The News Hour on PBS to be better researched and presented with more depth than network news programs. I cannot speak to whether it is the character of PBS that makes it so, or simply the jounalism quality of The News Hour team, but I attribute it to both.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:07 PM	Joanne Curtis : What is the "New York Times" saying--PBS is the one station that gives an acurate reporting of events, and offers outstanding programs. To think news on PBS is reported any other way is absurb. PBS is my lifeline to acurate news. All other PBS programs are highly regarded by me. What was the "New York Times" thinking?????

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:06 PM	Ann Moorhead : The News Hour is simply the best news programming on television. I am deeply appreciative of your commitment to informing the public.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:06 PM	Mark A. Wolfgram : Absolutely, PBS is necessary. What other mass media outlet addresses the issues of American foreign policy (war), race, immigration, the criminal justice system and others in a systematic and serious manner (FRONTLINE, NOW)? What other mass media outlet deals with the history of this country in a scholarly and reflective manner (AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, INDEPENDENT LENSE)? Commercial television and cable television are not filling this void. I use PBS material in my classroom on a regular basis, and the students appreciate the availability of the material online. Are commercial outlets going to do the same? Mark A. Wolfgram, Stillwater-Oklahoma

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:05 PM	Pam Workman : Nothing on commercial or cable TV compares with the selection or quality of PBS. News reporting is superior...sound bites do not exist! Besides the NewsHour, I also enjoy Masterpiece Theater, nature programs,and programs produced by my local station,KCPT.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:04 PM	maryla : Although I am surprised this is even an issue - it should be so obvious, I am pleased at the opportunity to voice my dependence upon PBS in every aspect of my daily life. Hopefully the positive comments logged here will be recognized universally as an over-whelming endorsement of PBS. Without PBS, I would have little or no news & analysis, information re the stock market, and daily, free, cultural exposure. I have been involved with public television and radio for 40 years, and plan for another 40!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:03 PM	Roland Beauregard : N In my opinion, the in depth analyses of current topics by persons of opposing views is not only useful but necessary in helping to make informed decissions. The News Hour is excellent at selecting antagonist for timely disscussins of current topics. In these times of 5 second commercial tv soundbites of topics, we need the unbias presentation of PBS with allotted time to hear both sides of issues

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:03 PM	Long Time Viewer : My husband and I call The News Hour "the real news" and miss it dearly on the weekends. It is timely, professionally researched and delivered without all of the fluff and advertisement on commercial TV. We are long time financial supporters as well.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:00 PM	Gainsay : I agree with most people that the News Hour is still relevant, but I think people are conveniently overlooking the rest of the PBS schedule. In Pittsburgh, WQED devotes a tremendous amount of time to airing doo-wop reunion concerts. I think it's hard to argue that is a good use of taxpayer money. They also spend a lot of time airing cooking programs, home improvement shows, and BBC comedies. All of those are done by better by commercial networks now, and none are really critical activities that need government funding. PBS does two necessary things well. News and educational programming for kids. It should re-focus it's efforts on those areas to justify getting federal funds.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:56 PM	William Cope : The only true fair and balanced news report. I race home to watch.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:56 PM	kadie kelly : The news we get on PBS is as refreshing as the news on National Public Radio. Both are national treasures and are more relevant now, than ever. The New York Times must have been hard up for a story!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:54 PM	Diane Cutaia : In some ways I agree with the NYTimes article. PBS is not as good as it was twenty years ago, but I do not see that as a rationale for decreased funding. Considering the fine programs such as The News Hour, Washington Week, Antique Road Show, This Old House and the programs focused on our St. Louis area, Living St. Louis and Donnybrook, I see it as a reason to increase spending in an effort to restore the station to it's past glory. First and foremost the PBS stations are available to anyone with a TV. Shouldn't our government be trying to bring first rate and informative programing to the broadest possible audience?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:54 PM	D : If we didn't have PBS, what would we watch? The article suggests that Discovery Channel, Travel, History, Animal Planet, etc., have siphoned off the die-hards for those interests, but what do we find there when we check them out? Endless repeats of the same footage, often originally shown by PBS years ago. The Travel Channel shows hours of World Poker Tour for some reason, or repeats PBS travel shows. Discovery and A&E have disintegrated into hyped crime shows, prison documentaries, parapsychology. HIstory Channel shows unrealistically re-enacted battles or old war footage, and rivals the Weather Channel for melodrama and loss of credibility. And the increasing number of 24-hour news channels only give us 24-hours of constantly repeated Brittany, Paris Hilton, and the runaway bride. What other channel would have allowed us to watch Stephen Sondheim's "Company"? Without the News Hour, we would only have the verbal fist-fights refereed by a so-called journalist trying to prod the participants into providing "fireworks" to increase ratings. "Analysis" consists of seeing who can use the most extreme terms to describe an event, often influencing the outcome of that event to the detriment of our democracy. Except for the News Hour and PBS, we would all be held hostage to the "news" channels' dependence on boosting ratings by whatever means, even distorting the information they provide. Already many of these sources are losing their credibility as a result, and their ratings will begin to reflect that, which will probably only inspire them to further extremes of exaggeration and tabloid reporting. Where will we go then to find out what we need to know to be responsible citizens, if PBS is no longer available? It isn't perfect, more money would certainly help, but there are no real alternatives.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:53 PM	Nan Diesch : If I had to give up everything on television save one program, that program would be the "News Hour with Jim Leher". It is the ONLY news available that gives all sides of an issue with commentary by articulate, informed spokespeople. I depend on the "News Hour" everyday. It is most important that our nation fund a public forum for discussion and debate in a civilized setting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:52 PM	Barbara : Unbelieveable that the New York Times would make such an off base assessment. I watch PBS regularly, especially The News Hour and Bill Moyers. Instead of gossip about movie stars, we get the real news of the day, and a real education about a wide range of relevant topics. In addition to watching, I am a regular contributor!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:49 PM	oxleypath : The News Hour is the best program on TV. The weekends are a wasteland- good time to listen to CDs, clean house, etc. Jim Lehrer and crew are the best.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:49 PM	sheila miller : PBS news is one of the only unbiased thoughtful presentations of the news that is available to the public, in our lives its the focal point of our information and is what we base our opinions and decisions on long may it reign'''''

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:49 PM	david freund : PBS's news and public affairs programs are unique- informative, intelligent and dialogical. The Times writer finds similar programs elsewhere. Where? An index of the seriousness of the article can be deduced by the arch characterization of Moyers' and Brancaccio's work as "hand-wringing earnestness". Why not question the political motives behind PBS's budget cuts rather than attack their consequent inability to mount top content ?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:45 PM	Dwight Oxley : Lehrer News Hour is the best on TV, better than most in print. Discontinue it and I stop watching TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:44 PM	Carol : The Newshour is the ONLY television news worth watching. My husband, our 13 year old son, and I watch it almost every night. Our dinner discussions are much better informed because of what we learn on the Newshour, even if it is from a point of view we'd rather not consider.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:43 PM	Francis family : If it were not for PBS, we would not watch TV. For the last 20 years we have enjoyed educational and cultural programs, as well as informative and objective news broadcasts on PBS. We do enjoy being able to watch programs without commercials, but the most important thing is access to high quality programming. Without PBS there would be no reason for us to watch TV at all. We do not subscribe to cable for we feel PBS gives us all the news we need to be informed. Thank you for this service. We happily joined in our Dallas, Texas area.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:42 PM	Vivian Anderson : I am grateful for the NewsHour. I have only a pair of rabbit ears in order to watch PBS. It is more important than ever in these times when commercial TV news coverage leaves much to be desired.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:41 PM	Jackie : PBS is a unique resource that is not duplicated for everyone by the sum of other stations. For one thing, it is free with the most basic cable package, which many of the cable channels are not. The Newshour is the premier news show on television, worth the taxpayer cost of PBS by itself. We watch it every night, and appreciate its depth of discussion and presentation of multiple views. PBS documentaries may not be frequent, but they are unexcelled when they do appear, e.g. "Eyes on the Prize" and the Ken Burns productions. Our local PBS affiliate, TCTV Minneapolis/St Paul, provides local news and programming vital to the Twin Cities community: I doubt it could survivie if the national entity were not vital. Rather than urge our legislators to allow PBS to survive, we should demand of them enough funding for it to thrive.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:40 PM	Dorothy : Pbs is my life line against the junk on the other outlet. The News hour is the only honest news Some people live in a drean world that the only thing important is music in their ear

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:40 PM	Judie : PBS is my source for news. I am not interested in the sensationalism of network and cable TV sources. I want real, relevant, unbiased news. Kudos to Jim Lehrer and all at The News Hour for continuing to provide exceptional journalism.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:40 PM	dunnor : The News Hour does a great job in reporting the news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:40 PM	E. Glavin : I watch the News Hour every evening and appreciate its intelligent and responsible presentation of important news. Over the years I have come to depend on its help to shape my understanding of national and world issues.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:39 PM	Richard Weiger : The "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer" is an important objective look at the news and issues of the day. It also provides subjective analysis of issues provided by commentators or leaders or experts on both sides of an issue. The reporting gives us an unbiased, unemotional and fairly reported summary of events. It is a trusted source of policical news and analysis. The reporters are some of the most respected and brightest in the business. Mr. Lehrer is a universally admired reporters and commentators in the business. It is the one of the few sources of thoughtful commentary and accurate reporting of television news in United States. It is a true treasure in a "news world" full of skewers, spinners, and falsity. Like many news sources, if the "NewsHour" makes an error, it is acknowldged and corrected. Quality is the nameplate of the program. It is the one indispensable source. I personally thank PBS and their afilliates for their broadcast of the show and for all the foundations, corporations, individuals, and Congress for their support of PBS and the "NewsHour."{

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:38 PM	Theresa Cotter : I don't want sound-bite news! I appreciate discussions by people with various viewpoints, giving me information and perspectives. Keep the NewsHour!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:35 PM	Donn : My reading of the article leads me to the impression that the writer is looking for amusment rather than serious and balanced coverage of the news as offered by the News Hour. One would hope that a Democratic administration and Congress will put more money in the till. The loss of the best news program on TV would be a tragedy for the apparently declining segment of the public looking for real substance.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:34 PM	Cornelius F Murphy Jr : As far as the 'high culture' aspect of PBS is concerned, I think the Anglophilia has gone too far. I have greatly enjoyed all the Masterpiece -BBC collaborations, but there is something narrowing about an inordinate concentration upon television programs originating in one country, Great Britain. I think PBS could attract a wider audience if it would obtain and show programs from other countries, both European and throughout the world. How about, for example, a French TV production of Madame Bovary? Or some of the best from Argentina, or India, or China? Sure, it would require sub-titles, but it would be worth the effort. Cornelius F Murphy Jr.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:32 PM	Cliff : America is doing many things today that make me ashamed to admit my nationality overseas, and makes me ashamed to explain to my children what America stands for both here and abroad. PBS (from Sesame Street to the News Hour to Frontline to American Experience) is something that I am proud to hold up to my kids as an example of what we can and should be. It is an example of what people can be when at their best. America used to stand for what was right, honest, and what could be aspired to. Now PBS tries to wave the flag in this spirit, in an aging, decaying country. For me, PBS still holds the some faint promise of being able to inspire Americans to what we should or could be. While its viewership might be declining, it still has a large impact to our society and democracy because of its credibility and the gravity of the issues it explores. It still plays a vital and necessary role in preserving American democracy - and now its time to go home and watch the News Hour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:30 PM	ruth roman : I am an NPR listener but there is nothing on radio that compares with the quality of the issues explored and explained the way the Newshour does. The interviewers are well-versed in the topics at hand and the questions they ask are well designed to and examine all the aspects of the issues. This program is far from unnecessary.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:30 PM	Joe K : I just wanted to add an anecdote; I was at the airport today and overheard one person recommending the News Hour to a second person -- citing the balanced viewpoint, the in depth converage, etc. And although I did not participate in the conversation, I was in complete agreement. That conversation could easily represent just one more person who could post a comment here, but it's actually more than that: I've heard that very same conversation countless times, in many different places -- and I daresay that I am not alone in this observation. There seems to be this universally consistent high opinion about the News Hour in the general public. And, as for myself, I appreciate the substance the News Hour provides whether it be discussions about the implications of recent Supreme Court rulings or an elaborate viewpoint from Sen. Joe Biden about the Iraq situation. I surely appreciate getting more than the meaningless soundbite that the other news sources provide.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:30 PM	Carol S. : I and my family have been watching PBS ever since we first got a local station years ago. Since I can't afford cable or satellite, I depend on PBS for good programming; I don't enjoy the pablum on commercial networks. Where else would I get The News Hour, Washington Week, or that little gem, To The Contrary? Supporting PBS is one expense I can afford.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:29 PM	stacye : I look forward to watching the News Hour on PBS with it's comprehensive and analytical focuses; also, Charlie Rose, and the other programs that come on Fridays, especially. I realized that I could get rid of Cable (too expensive) because I was watching PBS much more than Cable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:29 PM	Anne & Dave Shark : PBS is our number 1 viewing show which gives us such spectacular shows such as Frontline, Natl.Geographic,Bill Moyers,Washington Week,Now, etc. which enables us to have insight and knowledge about serious objective news and happenings in our world.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:26 PM	Bonnivier and Klein : Just want you to know how important NPR and PBS are to us.. and we support with our dollars..

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:26 PM	Lillian Morris : I resent the New York Times attempt to decide for me where I should look for my news reports each day. The PBS News Hour gives time, attention and great accuracy to its reporting, and presents all sides of issues through experts in the field, all of which keeps me informed on national and international issues. I respect the integrity of PBS and its reason for being, and I honor its decision to remain a program for news rather than an instrument for entertainment. I fully support the goals of Jim Lehrer and his staff.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:25 PM	Christine : I am glad I have the possibility of writng a comment, the page just closed as I was writing it on the NYT website. I imagine more outrage would have been expressed if the NYT had not closed their site to comments by yesterday early evening. My comment: After a long stay living abroad, upon my return: I am shocked at the absolute censorship and filter which prevades the reporting of News on US TV. The US viewer is deprived of the quality journalism, international news, news analysis, the rest of the world has access to through their local news stations as well as the BBC and even CNN International (which has nothing to do with CNN US). I would almost say that the existance of PBS and its news broadcasting, is a matter of US national security! How can the US continue to be any sort of a major player in this global world when the level of knowledge of its average citizen has sunk to such deplorable lows. US cable and commerical TV has absolutely abdicated any responsibity in informing the public, instead it spouts slanted propaganda, opinions, keeping the viewer in a hypnotic haze of trivia. If I didnt know better I would truly wonder watching US TV, so imbued with propoganda and censorsip, whether indeed we are still living in a democracy. PBS and its well rounded news broadcasting is the only reason I can rest assured that we still are. The US would truly be a scarey place if the light of PBS were snuffed out for any reason!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:23 PM	Ingrid : Yes, PBS is necessary. The newshour with Jim Lehrer is important because it is unbiased and informative without sensationalization like the rest of the news channels. I watch it every day. The reporters are superb.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:23 PM	Bonnivier and Klein : The Jim Lehrer News hour is our favorite..we have either NPR on the radio or PBS on screen... We are 80 year olds wisconsonites, former Chicagoans, and we support with our dollars.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:21 PM	Mr. D : I think more of public television than any other television broadcasting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:19 PM	Rita Salain : Yes, it mostly certainly is. It, and NPR, - are the only news programs worth I have any confidence in and the only ones I listen to regularly. I realize, of course, that PBS and NPR are now behholden to more commerical interests since we are not providing enough PUBLIC support but hopefully that will change with the election in November and hte inaguratation in January. Yes. The News Hour is absolutely necessary. I'm shocked that the question is raised by the Times. We don't subscribe to the NY Times currently but my husband recently commented that he intends to subscribe. Now I am going to encourage him to reconsider if the NY Times is this poorly informed.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:19 PM	Barbara Odle : To suggest that PBS is obsolete because fewer people are capable of appreciating the journalistic integrity of Jim Lehrer or the humanity of Bill Moyers is like suggesting that we all stop washing our hands because there are now too many germs. And it IS still political: Blunder (aka President Bush) has been trying to rid our country of those capable of integrity and critical thinking ever since he claimed the White House without regard for the expressed will of the people. I'm starting to wonder about the relevance of The New York Times.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:19 PM	James Pantelleria : After watching the news during the weekend I have to be sure and watch the News Hour on PBS on Monday to find out what really happened and what it all means.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:18 PM	Lydia : Charles. McGrath's may not think PBS is still necessary, but I, for one, can't imagine a world without it. No where on television in the U.S. will the viewer find a network with such a broad spectrum of programming and programming of such consistently high quality. True, there are some excellent programs on cable, but no one cable network provides such a variety and overall, the quality of cable programming is not much better than that of commercial TV. It also must be remembered that not everyone in the U.S. has cable – many find the ever increasing cable bills are just beyond their budget, especially those on fixed incomes. Perhaps Mr. McGrath’s antipathy to PBS is because he isn’t familiar with its programs? PBS broadcasts quality news and public affairs programs, classic drama, mysteries, travel programs, science programs, and historic documentaries. Would a commercial TV network offer such variety and quality. No, sadly, not these days. There was a time when CBS had a news organization that was the envy of the literate world – well, not anymore. No, instead of cutting PBS’s puny little appropriation, the Federal government should increase its funding.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:17 PM	Miri : As a long-time viewer of PBS and the Newshour I agree that some of the programs have not been moving in a positive direction. I miss the quality Mystery series and Masterpiece Theater presentations. However, more than that I have been disappointed that some of the news programs seem to feel that presenting he said/she said is "balanced" and appropriate. This may be a result of the attacks from the right on funding, but just listening to people mouthing set positions is not as informative as trying to find out what is truly best for our country or what one should know about the issues. We support PBS by contributing money and continuing to watch, and are hopeful that it will grow as NPR programming has.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:17 PM	Stan Weiss : Is PBS still necessary?!!! Is air necessary?!!! Talk about a no brainer! What kind of news coverage would we be getting without The News Hour and it's many fine reporters? Where else hear rational, intelligent discussion about politics and current events, if not with Gwen Ifill and Washington Week? Not from any other television broadcaster. Not to mention all the many fine programs to choose from on PBS, and NPR. Ask a question that doesn't have a built in resounding "YES!!!!" as an answer.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:17 PM	Sallie : The News Hour is the only news broadcast I trust completely. I can rely on their coverage to be insightful, intelligent and unbiased. Whoever wrote that article needs to be replaced by someone who actually watches the News Hour on a daily basis.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:17 PM	Michael Carlyle : I watch PBS news almost exclusively, a little CNN in the morning, wish PBS did morning news. I travel a lot, I'm a contract source inspector for a major aerospace/DOD supplier. I listen to NPR early in the morning for my news. I think there is a place for the 4 network news, though it seems to be for the under 19 and Christian over 60 croud. If your life hinges on Brittany (spanial) Spears and Anna Nicloe Smith.... go for it! If you think loosing Billions of dollars by the pallet full is acceptable, the alpabet news Is For You! If your a Republican that accuses the majority of the country of being un-American for not supporting the war... while cutting vetrans befits and closing VA hospital...go ahead and tax your grandchildren and watch America sink into 2nd class oblivian. We rank about 28th in health care and not much better in education. My 1962 high school diploma is about the equivalent of 3 years of college today. Our high school has 13 foot ball coaches but no physics, no chemistry, no geology. And no one cares that their kids can't even work the computers at McDonalds... but we can down load music! Bill Moyers is our only hope at this point and the Times would like to shut this down?? To what end>? News papers are declining because they are afraid to print the truth anymore. The only paper I read is the City Weekly in Salt Lake City (I live in West Virginia now) and it's FREE!! and a muck raker par excellance!! If the times can't take the truth in news and get on the blue bus ...may you expire in silence!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:16 PM	david johnson : My wife and I do not have cable do NOT want it. The newshour is the only way we want to go with a newscast and there is no way we would watch a "regular" broadcast. We are so fortunate not to have to pay for cable but are able to have PBS come into our home every night...THANK Heavens. Dave Johnson Bozeman Montana

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:16 PM	Mike Green : I am amazed that of all institution the NYT has the tenacity to say in this day and age that PBS is not necessary or even questions the necessity. When all you hear on the 24 news sources is about the death of a second rate playboy bunny, Anna nicole smith, for over two weeks, then the fight over the custody of the child, I can honestly say that not only is PBS necessary to get the REAL news that matters in a democracy, but that is should be REQUIRED of every citizen to watch. You know those people who say "government does not affect me or listen to me". Well nobody is listening because YOU are not making enough noise. DEMOCRACY is NOT a spectator sport. PBS and NPR are essential in that they DO NOT play to the lowest common denominator, like FOX and the other networks. You know those networks who believe they have to "sell" the news. Sorry, living in a democracy means that YOU MUST listen to things and be informed of events that you may not want to or know. I am glad that Jim Lehrer and NPR with Steve Inskeep, Rene Montaine, Susan Stanburg, Nina Totenberg, Sylvia Poljoli, Carl Castle, Bob Edwards (retired), Peter Segal, Ketzel Levine, Ann Garrels, Ray Suarez, Snigta Prakash (sorry for the spelling) and Ted Koppel, are there and are NOT beholden to the SPONSOR or a OWNER. Because of this they provide balanced informative news without spin. Sorry for mis-spelled names. Wake up America, turn on PBS and get informed, enraged, and obtain knowledge.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:15 PM	James E. Hinman : I have enormous admiration for Jim Lehrer whom I consider to be the best newsperson on television. The News Hour is simply the most informative and best directed news program available to viewers interested in an unbiased and thorough analysis and coverage of the news. I cannot image how ill informed all of us would be without this wonderfully insightful program.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:15 PM	Nelson Meredith : PBS News is like a voice in the wilderness. Ilook forward to the broadcast every evening and feel as if I have actually gotten an in-depth discussion of the important issues of the day. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:14 PM	Margaret : Comparing PBS news programs (particularly Newshour) to other cable channels is like comparing The New York Times to the National Enquirer for print news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:13 PM	Trish : Public Television and Radio is where I go for news, music and entertainment exclusively. I would be lost without them after enjoying those broadcast sources for over 50 years.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:12 PM	Paris : To get rid of PBS is nothing short of insanity. With the widespread consolidation going on in the private media sector along with the private sector's eternal drive for the bottom line and profits programing, content, and news have greatly suffered on private channels. Despite the many attacks PBS has suffered over the years from various Presidential Administrations it has remained steadfast in providing quality and thought provoking programing. Shows such as Mister Rogers, the NewsHours, and Frontline just to name a few programs could never survive on a private channel as those shows wouldn't generate a lot profits thus making them anathema to private companies. Also, the conflict of interests that many private broadcasters have in terms of their being owned by a major conglomorate such as NBC being owned by GE or ABC being owned by Disney not only prevents them from doing exposes on the misdeeds of their parent company but also makes these channels captive to the programs developed by their parent company (i.e. ABC exclusively showing Disney created shows). PBS is truly an independent network that is not beholden to a small cabal of private interests such as the Rupert Murdochs of the world, and PBS has the courage to produce shows that are for the greater good of society irregardless of whether or not such programs are profitable or popular. A classic example is of PBS doing a show many years ago titled "Death of a Princess" in which the network documented the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia which many of the private networks would never show out of fear of loosing commercial connections with the Saudi regime. In closing, PBS provides a valuable service to American society, and PBS provides a venue and voice to those issues and people who would otherwise be silenced due to the profit driven private media market.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:12 PM	Cheryl : My TV is set to PBS and my radio to NPR. When you do fund-raising, I contribute and then turn off the TV until regular programming resumes; there is nothing else worth watching/listening to. Thank you for The News Hour, The Moyers Journal, NOW, Nova, The American Experience, Frontline, Great Performances,etc., and your dedication to excellence.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:12 PM	Thomas Fina : PBS is the New York Times of the airwaves: the most civilized, objective, intellectually honest and thoughtful source of news and opinion about the whole range of the interests of our world. There is no other place to go on TV to get a comprehensive, authoritative and understandable account of the history that is made daily. The need of our society is for a better funded, more widely available PBS to enable our entire public better to understand the world around us and our choices in public policy. My answer is an unqualified "yes": PBS is still necessary.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:12 PM	CJM : We turn to PBS NewsHour for comprehensive, unbiased coverage and analysis of the daily news. For us it is very relevant and a breath of fresh air amid the cacophony of network and cable news. Quality of life would be diminished without PBS and Public Radio.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:11 PM	Jim Starkey : PBS is the only place where one can get news about current events handled in depth and mostly objectively. That is certainly not true of the New York Times or most network and cable news programs. I commend PBS for the very valuable service that it provides its viewers.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:09 PM	Elaine : I began watching PBS in 1963 when KLRU came on the air in Austin, Texas. My children were all raised on PBS children's shows (I still miss Mr. Rogers) and Masterpiece Theater was essential to my weekend. When KLRU was new, we had local news shows and other local offerings. I continue to look to PBS for quality shows ("Company" just last night), and although pledge drives are not as much fun as auctions were in the early days, The only programs I plan for are those on PBS. The News Hour offers a bit of sanity in an otherwise biased or sensationalized news landscape- and everyone there seems to be literate! I wish that our country would see the true worth of National and Public media, and finance it appropriately. Thanks for years of great news and entertainment - may it outlast us all.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:09 PM	James Mahoney : The most obvious, and most overlooked or discounted, reason to keep PBS is that there are still great numbers of us who do not have cable or satellite TV. For us, PBS is a mainstay station. Apart from that, The News Hour alone is reason enough to keep funding PBS. I was reminded of that--as if I needed to be--when one of the broadcast networks introduced a new host who said the show would "try to tell people what the news means" (or words to that effect). I was so appalled at what I saw in that debut performance (and I use "performance" very deliberately) that I immediately went to the 'net and contributed additionally to keep The News Hour on the air. That's the good news. The bad news is that a substantial amount of the programming is now either boring(ly predictable), disappointing(ly vapid), or "viewers's favorites" (and we all know what THAT means). As I once wrote to my local outlet: "If it's a concert/music show, it must be fundraising time. When the likes of Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods--"It was a very good song!"--is on the schedule, it's time to watch the more stimulating Let's Make a Deal! The commercials that "sponsorships" have turned into don't bother me a whit; the quantity of insipid fare aimed at nostalgics and "we also" pop programming that the Times mentions DOES bother me because it smacks of a dear empire in decline. Please put the snap back into it; the snap that made us watch PBS because we WANTED to, not because it is is the best of bad choices. There are more creative ways to try to fundraise, and they ought to be tried. You might just learn that they work at least as well as the old standby methods, which, for this viewer/contributor, simply signal that it's time to avoid TV for a week or so. Hey! Maybe that's not such a bad thing after all...

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:09 PM	BHH : Innuendo is not journalism. Their credibility is lost on the McCain issue. The New York times is not worthy of being known even as a tabloid !

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:09 PM	IdahoJTC : Crippled by budget cuts, public TV and public schools face similar challenges. Privatizers want these institutions to fail and enact policies to make that happen. As a vehicle for advertising, commercial media excels, but is completely irrelevant to our family. PBS (and especially The News Hour) excel at journalism, an essential element of informed democracy, just like public schools. The News Hour is where we turn for unbiased reporting. PBS is top on my relevancy list!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:08 PM	William Harwell : In spite of the variety of programming now available via cable, the quality cannot compare to the selections available on PBS. The quality and depth of the news reporting cannot be found anywhere else.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:08 PM	Kathy Couch : There is NOWHERE else on tv where I can get news I can trust than on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. As far as cable stations encrouching on PBS programming, remember that not everyone has cable. Even though I do have it, I check PBS listings first when I'm looking for entertainment. The amount of gov't funding for PBS and NPR is miniscule. Neocons just want to get rid of a thorn in their side.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:07 PM	JeanMcDonell : I am a long viewer of PBS and to think they are no longer necessary to me in unthinkable. THey have by far the best programming the best news coverage.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:07 PM	Tom : PBS covers news with a depth unmatched in any broadcast medium of which I am aware. It is a national treasure in a time when most broadcasts are addicted to quick ratings and short term profits. The Newshour and NPR have become my first choice for news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:07 PM	Janelle : If it were not for PBS, we would not watch TV. For the last 20 years we have enjoyed educational and cultural programs, as well as informative and objective news broadcasts on PBS. We do enjoy being able to watch programs without commercials, but the most important thing is access to high quality programming. Without PBS there would be no reason for us to watch TV at all.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:04 PM	Aric Mueller : PBS's News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the best news show available to our family. By best, I mean that the topics that are covered are done so in substantial detail and with a consistently balanced perspective. I watch Fox News, read liberal blogs, read and watch news from abroad, and everything in between. That said, if I have one hour to spend getting perspective on the day, it will come from the PBS New Hour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:03 PM	Times Out : PBS along with many of it's programs has enhanced our lives for many years. Not only is it informative but it also provides the audience with an unbiased view of the world at large. Everything else is a distant second. Thank you to NPR and PBS for this enrichment!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:03 PM	Irwin Hundert : The world would be a significant loser w/o PBS. Of course The News Hour is an essential part of the news. The many facets of PBS makes it the most important channel for me and my family. There are many marginal channels that I can receive. Long live public television and PBS, the jewel in the crown of broadcasting!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:03 PM	Bill Catlett : Lehrer New our is the only decent news program on Television. The only place where you get news facts in context. Lehrer and Warner have to be the best journalists in a medium that is more focused on entertainment than news.The American people cannot do without this real news coverage

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:03 PM	Dorothy : We have been watching PBS for years for the reason that the programming has been balanced, informative and innovative to say nothing about the fact there has been little advertising. It has distressed us that governmental funding has consistently been cut back in what appears to be a deliberate attempt to destroy this valuable asset by those who consider it to be far too liberal. It is frightening to think that there may come a time when PBS is gone and our only way to get news would be from stations with a political bias and an appetite for the sensational above valuable content and thoughtful analysis.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:02 PM	Steph : In these complex times as our American ways of life are fundamentally questioned PBS is more relevant than ever before. Particularly the NewsHour and BBC world news. These are my resources for serious objective news about the world around me with hype edited out and opinion clearly identified and counterbalanced by recognized spokespeople from both sides clearly stating their cases for the audience to take or leave. Sadly in most news programs fact and opinion are hoplesssly blurred. Thankfully PBS especially the Newshour has remained true to the values of Morrow, and Cronkite and McNeil. Thank you

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:02 PM	marv van kekerix : Is the Newshour since relevant. More so than ever. Some of us prefer to form our own opinions based on multiple sources. The Newshour is a primary source in that process for me. The Times is not on my radar screen except as a secondary source.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:02 PM	Ed : I read an article in the Washington Post, in which Chris Matthews of MSNBC stated that he couldn't sit through an entire News Hour because he found it so boring. I am sure the people at PBS took that as a compliment from Mr. Matthews. Cable news does not offer the kind of insightful, intelligent analysis in 24 hours that the News Hour and shows like it offer in just one. I for one find PBS generally, and the News Hour specifically, to be a breath of fresh air, and more than enough for me to enjoy without paying for the infotainment offered on cable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:02 PM	susan johnson : WHAT would I do without the newshour on PBS...I couldn't start to think and wouldn't want to think of watching any other news program. I get an indepth and full report...not just soundbites. I get to listen to both sides of the issue and make up my own mind as to what I think. I couldn't do without the newshour. I also get my news from Public Radio and from the Christian Science Monitor. I am so grateful for these publications and television programs. Thank you....

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:02 PM	Richard : Only once in my life have I contacted the two Senators and Congresswoman representing my state and region. That was in response to the political coup the current administration comitted on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If PBS is not relevant why was it considered an early priority to control this most balanced source of information available to average Americans. The Newshour gives all parties the time to dicuss issues thoroughly. The RESPECT for the viewer is evident. What is more relevant than that. Thank you Newshour for your professionalism and your citizenship. PS Don't get me started about Frontline and Bill Moyers.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:01 PM	Barbara : The Nightly Business report and the News Hour are the most important part of our viewing day. We get reliable news, not opinions. We feel it is a great value to the entire country.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:00 PM	Michael Warren : PBS remains one of the few oases in the otherwise vast and arid wasteland of television. Should it wither, this country shall be diminished.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:00 PM	Dave : I think that article said more about the NYT than The News Hour. As has been said many times in the above comments, PBS is the only network that exhibits what television ought to be which is a learning tool. A tool that should inspire thought and discussion. A tool that teaches and a tool that helps. The rest of the media world has become terribly sad. d

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:59 PM	Elouise Mattox : If PBS left the air we would discard our TV as PBS is almost the only TV we watch. We resent, but understand the need for some advertising that has crept into PBS. But the advertising is no where near as offensive as commercial TV. PBS programming is thoughtful and intellectual rather than sensational. We must keep PBS and in fact increase government financial support. And, finally, thanks for bringing Bill Moyers back

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:59 PM	rebecca glasscock : PBS (and NPR) are absolute essentials. Don't have cable. Don't want cable. Without PBS the TV set goes!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:59 PM	Lauence Howard : We spend years strangling PBS budgets and now we accurately bemoan the loss of challenging, risky, creative programming. The PBS we could have had if it had a healthy, reliable budget certainly would gander ratings. We get what we pay for.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:57 PM	tsenacommacah : While I missed several minutes of the piece, I was surprised that not one of the experts re: Liberia and the importance of Africa to the US brought out the cultural reality that a good percentage of the population of the USis African-American. All seemed to focus on the tangible, not the cultural. Love PBS, watch it every night, and especially "The News Hour".

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:56 PM	mom : I am living in Australia and would be lost without the comprehensive coverage that comes with The News Hour. I also get the BBC, DW and Radio Netherlands. I think I get a well rounded view of world news and would be lost if I were to be denied the News Hour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:55 PM	Bill : PBS is not necessary; it is essential. I am saddened that anyone, most of someone associated with another news organization, would ever question how very relevant and materials PBS is. He is wrong.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:54 PM	Robert Buchanan : The Times article is almost comical. It accuses PBS of being run by conservatives when PBS has a totally liberal bias agenda (Just like the Times). Next it accuses PBS of being in trouble in the ratings game when the Times has the real problem of keeping its own head above water as a relevent and finantially successful news media. Apparently the Times management has decided to go the way of the National Observer. Baseless acqusations such as this and the McCain story today demonstrate their desparate attempt to maintain some relevence in the business or maybe its just to waller in senstionalism to sell papers.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:54 PM	Christine Peterson : Yes, PBS is still necessary. Frontline, Independent Lens, News Hour, Charlie Rose, Nova etc. We can't get these anywhere else on Cable. Commercial / mainstream TV is a wasteland

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:54 PM	Gale Reid : After reading the NYT article I think we should quit supporting that institution if that is the level of critical thinking it wishes to exhibit. The comments on both the NYT website and this one express what my wife and I feel about our beloved PBS. Perhaps, as has been noted, we need to restore cuts made in the past to its programing rather than completely pull the plug. If new programing is so expensive, increase the amount of the government subsidy so we can do new shows that are not "musty" Musty, indeed. Go, News Hour, Go, Bill Moyers, Go, David Brancaccio, Go, all. Thank you

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:54 PM	Tom & Paula : We have been watching PBS for years. The News Hour has been a constant source of relevant and intelligent events in our world. Considering the origin of these comments is the New York Times, we shouldn't be too surprised.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:53 PM	Mark Mulligan Sr : To be or not to be, that is the question. PBS has every right to exist, just as the New York Times does. Both may one day be obsolete like the typewriter but at this point in time they are not. Both have their own bias as we all do and so long as the information they provide is read or listened to with a healthy skepticism, valuable information, insight and in some cases wisdom can be found although at times there are foolish things written or reported in a serious manner.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:52 PM	mary Buchbinder : If the Newshour were to disappear it would be a major disappointment in my life. It's unique in it's attempt to get authoritative opposing points of view in one 10-15 minute segment, without commercials. The latter is also major. Washington Week is also a superb show.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:50 PM	Steve : Over 50% of all my tv viewing is on PBS. Perhaps if more people watched PBS we would have a more informed electorate. I particularly like Frontline, NOVA, Bill Moyers, Washington Week and The News Hour. I think my tax dollars are well spent on PBS (if some end up there)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:49 PM	Roland Herberg : The problems cited by NY Times is underfunding. So the solution is SIGNIFICANTLY increase public funding. You can watch most PBS programs without their fundraising interrupting it. You can't watch any commercial program without a constant frequent interruption for advertising. It drives me crazy waiting for some content. We watch only the News Hour almost every night. We watch about 4 or 5 additional hours of TV in the week. None of most of what is on is worth the precious time it takes to watch the incessant and insipid and misguiding ads the dominate the programs. It is absolutely essential to a vibrant democracy that there be some independent, noncommercial biased, source of news. We think that is important enough that we have become members of the producers club. That is less support than we have traditionally given our church which no more valuable to us than is the quality of current information provided by the News Hour. Freedom of expression is a good idea when there is equal opportunity for everyone (large and small) to do it; but when one multibillionaire mogul can control everything you see or hear, then we are victims in the same way as people in a closed society are. The key to a free society is balance of power in all functional areas of that society including something as pervasive and vital as the media. We have been rapidly moving away from balance of powers starting with the Gingrich Revolution and continued and accelerated up to this day. Too many people fell for the deception that called "truth" as being "liberal" and calling propaganda as "truth". The current campaigns suggest hopefully that the general public is seeing things more clearly these days.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:48 PM	Hope : PBS is absolutely necessary to fair and open reporting in this country. PBS is the only place on TV that actual indepth reporting is available. This includes the News Hour and all the other news programs on PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:48 PM	T Greene : PBS is one of my major sources of news. The coverage that PBS provides is balanced and thorough; unlike commercial television or radio sources. Nowhere else is such depth and thoughtful coverage available. Of course PBS is still necessary!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:48 PM	georgia : The News Hour is still relevant. There are other programs too but I will focus on The News Hour because it is extensive news done quitely...most other news is "clipped" and/or "noisy". (I won't put down anybody in particular but you know what I mean and I am saying that as someone who watches that news too) It is very necessary to have the News Hour. Other important shows are Nova, Nature, Bill Moyers, Frontline, Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley the Henry Louis Gates series and the only place on the remote where people who do not have cable movie channels can see a commercial free movie now and again. There are probably other shows I have left out that fill a need and a niche. The fundamental premise of the article in the Sunday Times was silly...it is great that NPR is doing so well but to compare its role with the role of PBS is apples and oranges. Take care and I hope you get more of our tax dollars. And I hope you are still on when I am in assisted living! (I'm 54 but I get my 17 year old to watch sometimes so hopefully he is the future)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:47 PM	Gloria : PBS is my favorite television channel. The News Hour, Washington Week, and The Charlie Rose Show are all news programs that my husband and I appreciate primarily for the depth and breadth of their coverage. NO OTHER STATION covers the U. S. news as thoroughly. Where else do you hear coverage of most Supreme Court cases with the depth that The News Hour provides? Am I missing something, or is the New York Times article of February 17, 2008 full of opinion and inaccuracies? It seems to me this article would have been better placed on the opinion page. Since when does the New York Times engage in what I see as anti-intellectualism and ageism? Jim Lehrer, we love you. Please keep doing what you have been for many wonderful years. Enough about news coverage as PBS does many other things well. PBS does what NO OTHER STATION does by broadcasting fine arts programs not seen anywhere else, i.e., opera, ballet and the visual arts. Where else will we go to watch quality television that is not "dumbed- down and pornified" as on the commercial channels? I do not want to lose Masterpiece of Mystery, programs that i find highly entertaining. Yes, I have even enjoyed every one of the Jane Austen programs. It seems to me that we need variety in television, and PBS provides that variety as NO OTHER STATION can in spite of what the New York Times article "reports." Gloria

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:47 PM	Josephine Rae : Of course PBS is necessary. Where would TV be without Masterpiece Theatre, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyers' Journal and Saturday night Brit Wit to list just a few? The children's programs are good, especially Sesame Street. The only necessities on TV for me are PBS, C-Span and Bob Ryan's Weather on NBC 4.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:47 PM	Linda : While there are several good television news shows, none have comparable depth when looking at different sides of an issue. The NewsHour provides interviews with experts who educate us about issues that matter in our lives. Jim and staff are respectfully civil; there's no other show with such consistent quality.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:46 PM	Jim : PBS is hands down the best source of news on television. I rely on the NewsHour for objective and topical coverage of the news which I can't find on any other network or cable stations. I also think find Frontline to be a very enlightening program with much higher quality coverage than other documentary programs. If PBS faces any competition, it is from offerings on NPR and PRI which are also very good.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:44 PM	Martin Brady : The NewsHour is still very relevant and worthy. It's worth the bucks. But there are flaws: Margaret Warner is a lackluster reporter who stumbles her way through her inquiries most nights; Mark Shields' commentary is also filled with hemming and hawing and the whiff of invalidity; the constant reliance on the same old think tank/Ivy League/Eastern establishment/New York-to-Washington wonks and journalists leaves the feeling that PBS doesn't believe in intelligent life west of the Potomac River. The latter is certainly a big mistake for an enterprise presumably striving to maintain credibility thoughout the country. The format is reliable and thoughtful generally, and no one can argue with that. Ray Suarez is a terrific interviewer; ditto Judy Woodruff (who's simply excellent); Lehrer stays sharp in his role. Ifill is a competent television presence with, apparently, an ordinary mind. The show needs a shuffle probably, but it also needs to maintain its serious and literate stance. That's what makes it invaluable—and still different from the network McNews and the shouting on cable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:43 PM	Kathy and Walter : The balance, civility and professional dedication to the presentation of the nightly news gives us an intelligent, unbiased, broad, and in depth view of important world issues. We cannot even bear the thought of life without The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and his talented co-hosts. Is PBS relevant?? It sure is and we will continue to support PBS and NPR as long as we are able.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:43 PM	chuxley : The News Hour is essential. It is the only television news program (besides CBS's 60 Minutes) that does not rely on program resembling a bias argument's version of professional wrestling. Most cable programs seek out extreme positions without little new information as to the contents of issues of important the future of this country. Besides all of that, in the areas of science, history and the arts there are no programs that continue to provide excellent and engaging, we find both learning and enjoyable programming that we love.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:43 PM	JoAnn Murphy : The NewsHour is the JEWEL in the crown of PBS. I would be lost without it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:43 PM	Michael : I'm glad this topic came up so that people understand just how important the News Hour truly is. I'm 23 years old and have watched the News Hour since I was a teen. My parents always had it on and I never appreciated it until I became older. The News Hour is an actual news program. The show takes the time to explain the topic and offer at least two distinct points of view for each topic. The show is incredibly balanced and fair and takes on topics most news shows would nor could not. I truly value the program and PBS in general. The News Hour among other shows is the reason why I support public broadcasting. I hope the News Hour continues to provide fair, patient, trustworthy information so that the people of this great Republic can be well informed with current events. Thank you so much! Keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:42 PM	Baerbel Merrill : I cannot imagine not having PBS Newshour or any other programs that are offered on PBS. I do not watch Fox news because I cannot stomach the screaming matches generated by Bill O'Reilly, I do not like MSNBC just to watch Chris Matthew looking to see if he is on the monitor and not letting his guest speak. I need the indepth analysis that PBS brings to us. Thank You.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:42 PM	cthree100 : Newshour: I am a NYT "junkie" but they are wrong on this. PBS is very important, to children. And to adults who seek adult news and adult broadcasting (Great Performances, for one). But especially the News Hour. We are addicted. If we're not here at the time it airs (it varies depending on our location) we tape it. Only the News Hour presents an in-depth view of what is critical on any given day. I don't always agree with the theory that EVERYTHING needs a two-sided perspective (sometimes the twits on the other side are just too out of it to even give air time to) but on the whole the time spent with interviews, probing questions and a look into the other guys eyes, gives one a very different perspective on what is happening out there. Please, please, please keep it up. Jim Lehrer, my husband, a former WWII Marine (and member of the Cosmos Club who honored you a couple of years ago), is so addicted to your News Hour that the children know not to call during the airing! You are keeping an old (and now sadly muddled man) in touch with the world. Thank you. Stay the course. Cthree

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:42 PM	michael white : I vote to keep the News Hour! Admittedly it is sometimes difficult to differentiate between the sponsors' announcements and the advertisments on commercial television, but at least they come at the beginning and the end of the program. In between we get in-depth coverage of real news stories, rather than the sound-bites of the network news programs - and Britney Spears is never mentioned! Obviously The News Hour gets a lot of its on-the-ground foreign news reports from the British group ITN, but that is good too. It gives us a glimpse into the outside world and a momentary escape from the self-censorship so often practiced by commercial channels when America's interests abroad are the focus of the news. Keep it up, News Hour!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:42 PM	thyme : PBS in general, and the Lehrer Newshour in particular, is the gold standard of television broadcasting. If it is removed, other networks will not replace its quality.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:42 PM	Robert Carlos : I have always admired the rigid moral standard that, Jim Leher has maintained when reporting the news and has held everyone else reporting on his show to that exact same standard. It is a very welcome site indeed and I hope that this kind of standard was more pervasive in reporting the news of the day without bias. Is there a need to continue this type of programing, just as sure as the turning of the earth.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:41 PM	Ann : My husband and I watch PBS more than any other station. We can always count on quality and no commercials. We probably wouldn't even own a TV if it weren't for PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:39 PM	Harriet Hinck : Although I have never offered my viewa on the internet, responding to the piece in the NY Times, 2,07,2008 is an imperative. Having watched and supported financially PBS for many years, I know that I have given much pleasure and information. In addition to the Newshour which offers unparalled coverage of news and isssues, there has been 30 years of Masterpiece Theatre opera programs, science, nature, documentaries. Our culture without PBS is unimaginable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:36 PM	mary Buchbinder : If the Newshour were to disappear it would be a major disappointment in my life. It's unique in it's attempt to get authoritative opposing points of view in one 10-15 minute segment, without commercials. The latter is also major. Washington Week is also a superb show.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:36 PM	Naomi Baresel : Where would we be without the in depth reporting of issues without PBS News? The country needs and desreves to have this type of programming.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:33 PM	boggscreek : PBS is very important to me. They may not cover everything in the world, but what they do cover is done professionally and in an easy to understand and comprehensive way. I appreciate their efforts to provide quality broadcast television as well and their efforts in radio. It's relevancy is, to me at least, not in question.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:32 PM	Abigail : I have been committed to NPR and PBS for over 40 years, first in NJ and now in FL. Whenever there is a controversy, I turn to PBS for the unbiased truth. My sympathies to anyone who does not benefit from this wonderful American institution.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:32 PM	Lloyd : Public television can’t compete with 100 cable channels. As regards to Nielsen Ratings, I do think it should be more competitive, i.e. be able to prove a larger audience is watching; funding should be linked to it. It should seek more revenue by advertising itself less, selling the time to sponsor some cutting edge programs. Indeed, there’s just a whole lot of BS that happens on both NPR and public TV that one wishes was absent. It could seek day later sports and probably win a lot of viewers (too late, cable guy thought of it first, no, do it your way) and find it’s affordable too. It’s not cutting edge, it doesn’t excite people. It doesn’t try hard enough to be fresh. It’s reactive, lazy or not proactive. People need to leave the office more and report more on real issues beyond politics. Thus, it can be managed a lot better. But we still watch. Unfortunately, we wish we were not part of such a minority.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:31 PM	SMK : I can't imagine t.v. viewing without PBS. It's one of the only places that has valuable cultural content. There's only so much "reality t.v." one can take.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:31 PM	BJ and Joe : We are octogenarians who have been around long enough to sample whatever television has to offer. Without PBS we would rarely turn the set on. We have not watched a network newscast in longer than I can remember and we shouted with joy when Bill Moyers finally came back. I dread the day we have to do without him and/or Jim Leher. They are more relevant today than ever.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:29 PM	graciela : It is important for a democray to have a well informed public. PBS is about the most well balance and comprehansive coverage. It is also the easiest and most preasant way to convey the News. Jim Leher and the staff deliver a professional program. Without This program myself and most of my friends will lack access to the news important enough to make our meaningfull decisions. The lost of such News outlet will be unbearable, personaly as well as a degradation of the media enviroment.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:28 PM	Beth P : I must admit that I did identify with some of the NYTimes article's criticisms. EXCEPT for what was said about the NewsHour, and Jim Lehrer in particular. We depend on the NewsHour nightly for information, analysis and great reporting. I have long been a devotee of PBS programs but the high quality shows are being aired less and less. The good news is that radio (NPR) is often able to fill the void. Also I can't resist commenting on Jim's great taste in ties.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:26 PM	teragram : Is PBS still necessary? The better question might be, are all the 24 hour, ratings driven "news", tabloid style channels necessary?. I would be misinformed and underinformed without the balance of PBS programming. I watch the News Hour whenever I can and I actually get to hear thoughtful, educated discussions of both sides of very important issues. Throughout my adult life the News Hour has been my most important source of information when I am trying to form an opinion on a policy, person, event, etc. affecting our lives and our world. PBS is absolutely necessary to developing and maintaining a population of people who understand the meaning and importance of civilized discourse and truly knowing and understanding politics, social issues, economics, history, mathmatics, science, the arts, geography, and anything else that is important in life. It is a wonderful resource that anyone can access regardless of circumstances. In a world where media outlets are being gobbled up by a few powerful ownership groups, PBS remains extremely necessary. Now, more than ever.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:26 PM	Carolyn H. : As a lifelong PBS viewer, I cannot take seriously the New York Times article written about the relevancy of PBS. One year ago, I decided to cut back to basic cable, and I miss none of the extended cable channels, but I could never do without PBS!! If my television viewing options were limited to only one channel, my choice would be no other than PBS. I grew up in a household in which McNeil/Lehrer was a nightly staple, and such has continued to be the case in my own household -- for decades! There is no comparison to the in-depth, informative, and well-balanced news coverage provided by The Newshour. The NY Times article noted how long Jim Lehrer has been on the program, but, in my eyes, that in itself speaks of his relevance. He continues to do a superb job, as do all reporters on the program. Like others have noted, one of my favorite segments of the program is the Friday night analysis of Mark Shields and David Brooks. And as for Masterpiece...Jane Austen works just fine for me! Put simply, I cannot imagine life without PBS. Cheers to The Newshour!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:25 PM	Tracy Keppel Drury : Quite simply, I cannot imagine my life without The News Hour!! It's balanced view of issues, it's in depth reporting by superior newscasters, the intelligent comments by the guests, and the good humor and opinions of my favorite pundits cannot be found anywhere else on TV. This is the one program on TV I try to never miss. Without it, I would be less informed and less engaged in the important global issues of today. Friday night is my favorite on PBS. I enjoy PBS programming, especially Ken Burns' work and American Experience. I do think newer programs would be welcome; ones that will help us US citizens learn more about the people and places of our shared planet. Public Radio is good too, but I am a person who learns visually as well as aurally. I need both and, I may add, financially support both.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:25 PM	Merry Wyoming : You bet PBS is still necessary and always will be to those of us who expect fully objective news coverage daily. This sounds like a question posed by someone who doesn't want any competition or comparison. But that's what PBS and NPR are all about - objective news. How many times must PBS be criticized by media competition? That's the beauty of competition - it makes us all do our job better. Yes, we still need PBS. From Jim Lerher's News Hour to Masterpiece Theater, Nature, American Experience, and even the exercise programs I use each morning. Thank you PBS for all you give us daily. We are all better people for it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:24 PM	Georges Dubois : With more and more media control ending up in a few hands it is vitally important that News Hour continues. It would be a serious loss to our democracy if it were to be discontinued. Personally I can't imagine the News Hour not being broadcast anymore.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:23 PM	Janet : The Lehrer Newshour is the centerpiece of our day and has been since its inception with Robert McNeil. Without it news coverage is merely a constant drone, white noise. We are committed to it!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:21 PM	Steve P. Fitzgerald : I have listened to NPR and watched PBS for 30 years or more. Interesting, informative, accurate and balanced reporting. I know when I watch a show that no personal interest is backing that show or position. Each time there is a question about the importance of PBS, it only gives strength to its viewers and programs. The News Hour is revelant and gives me a daily coverage of the latest news. Many Kudos for PBS and all who help present it. All these major corporations who sponsor PBS give validity to what they too feel is important. Continued success PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:21 PM	Charlotte Lane : While I love and laugh over the "news" reported on The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, The News Hour is my main source for credible news. The radical Right has tried for years to kill off PBS by squeezing their financing or by putting other right-wingers on the PBS board because The News Hour actually practices JOURNALISM. And corporate ownership ensures that network news has absolutely NO RELEVENCE. Thanks to each and every person involved in this most excellent program.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:20 PM	Scott Meyers : PBS is more relevant then commercially sponsored news programs that think we don't think. And maybe that’s the problem, we don’t voice our thoughts enough. I thank all of you at the News Hour for your efforts…you are always welcome in my home!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:20 PM	Noah Ewing : PBS in general and the News Hour in Particular provides the most unbiased and intelligent accounts of world and national events to be found anywhere. All sides of important issues are always represented in a civilized manner. The notion that it is irrelevent is absurd. Funding from the Federal Government should be increased at least ten fold. Simply put, if forced to choose, I would pick PBS over broadcast TV and Cable. Noah Ewing, Retired Judge and Attorney.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:19 PM	CRE : PBS is the ONLY place where the publically accessable can acceess in depth news programming - by publically accessible, I mean no cable, no satellite TV, or even internet connection is required. PBS is the ONLY place (certainllly nationwide) that is practicing TV journalism anywhere. If I want indepth coverage of both major (and real) events that have happened (hollywood starlets acting badly does NOT acccount as a real event :), and perhaps more importantly, events that are NOT being covered at all (ala "Now!", B. Moyers Journal, Frontline, ect) PBS is the only place we can go to -- thankfully, it is also THE BEST place to go to for the quality of journalism. Friday Night is my Public Affairs night, and even if I'm at work I'll steal away to a TV in a confrence room to watch (or I'll DVR it :) PBS is an essential link in my modern citizenship in this country. It will be an enormous setback for those in legslative power to be so ignorant as to bespeak of removing PBS news programming. I could go on and on, but I've made my point and have to stop. Besides, I need to get home to watch the rest of the News Hour :))

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:19 PM	Thomas Wilcox : The relavance of PBS is the outstanding programming free of mindless sitcoms and reality shows all too often interrupted by equally mindless commercials. It is the only medium that is geared to persons of inquiring intelect and interests. Where else could one see Masterpiece, Mystery, NOVA, Frontline, American Experience, the Newshour and the many many specials which appeal to adult viewers ? PBS is an absolute must: more so than the New York Times which we also read.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:18 PM	graciela : It is important for a democray to have a well informed public. PBS is about the most well balance and comprehansive coverage. It is also the easiest and most preasant way to convey the News. Jim Leher and the staff deliver a professional program. Without This program myself and most of my friends will lack access to the news important enough to make our meaningfull decisions. The lost of such News outlet will be unbearable, personaly as well as a degradation of the media enviroment.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:18 PM	Andrew : It scares me that there could even be a discussion as to the relevance of PBS and particularly The Newshour. My eye is on the clock every weekday at 3pm in California to catch Jim Lehrer's fabulous team LIVE through the miracle of the Internet for its in-depth analysis of the news and interviews with the newsmakers themselves. The sound-bites that pass for 'national' news on the commercial channels and the circus known as local news drive me up the wall!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:18 PM	Connie P : As a middle aged single social worker on a tight budget who chooses NOT to spend limited discretionary money on cable tv, I am a member of Public Television primarily because of the News Hour--relevant, interesting, always so much more than the innane sound bites on the commercial networks! It is crazy to assert PBS is not relevant.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:18 PM	Catherine : At our house at 6:00 we all say: "Jim's on!" The TV comes on and we are absorbed. I can't add to all of the eloquent sentiments about how necessary and incomparable PBS and the NewsHour are except to echo them. Jim, Gwen, Judy, Jeffrey, Margaret, and Ray are part of our family.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:13 PM	Cece : Thank goodness for PBS and in particular for Moyers and the News Hour. And there really isn't anything like the documentaries elsewhere, from Eyes on the Prize to the series on World War II.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:12 PM	Kathy : The Lehrer New Hours represents the best in televised journalism. The reporting is trustworthy, thoughtful, and of value. I thought the other night, if Jim Lehrer ran for president, I would vote for him.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:11 PM	Michael Brennan : I have just watched the Newshour for February 21. In it was a dispassionate account of the brouhaha over John McCain's relationship with a younger female lobbyist. I have also watched commentary about this issue on Fox, CNN, NBC and so on. Many Republican commentators treat the New York Times article as a kind of Swiftboating of McCain. Others gave other but equally emotional and politically motivated opinions and speculations. Only PBS remained basically factual. My children grew up watching PBS, sometimes to the ridicule of their friends. Now they both have degrees from major universities and are fully "launched." PBS had a lot to do with their success. A reliable source of news may bot always be entertaining but its relevance is indisputable. Instead of commercializing the news PBS gives the news to us as straight and unfiltered as it can. The Newshour provides a model of rational discourse manifestly unequaled by any other television new program.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:11 PM	Margaret DeLong : I listen nightly; that and NPR along with The New Yorkerand Christian Science Monitor and Washington Post Weekly give me good coverage. The New York Times has gone off on strange tangents of late. Need to sell papers?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:10 PM	Tired of cable programming : PBS is necessary. We disconnected cable seven months ago not only because of the cost of cable, but also a result of programs that had disconnected from us and our needs and loud and obnoxious commercials. PBS is a soothing and provides meaningful programs. Thank you for providing these programs

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:10 PM	Kathy in California : PBS is essentially the only television I watch. The Newshour, Bill Moyers, and Gwen Ifel's Washington Week are my favorites. The in depth analysis of a few topics, rather than a flurry of sound bites as seen on commercial TV, is critical for being an informed citizen. I love the fact that public television is not afraid to (and is able to) cover topics that may be controversial. Public television is necessary for our Freedom.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:09 PM	Don Davidson : The ONLY TV program I watch regularly is the Jim Lehrer news. When I can't watch it when broadcast by UNCTV (that we support financially every year) I tape it for later viewing. The lack of bias permitted by public TV is one of the pillars undergirding our very freedom itself. And Jim Lehrer is a superb, thoroughly professional example of it. Public TV is an imperative!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:08 PM	Heather R. : We would be lost without Jim Lehrer's News Hour!! Local/national news on the broadcast channels never give us more than a couple of minutes per subject. With Mr. Lehrer we receive in depth reports on what is current and important without commercials. Nature, Wired Science, Nova and just a few of the outstanding programs that we watch on PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:08 PM	RichinAtlanta : I believe PBS is relevant than ever. At a time them journalistic standards are in freefall, PBS continues its high standards. Indeed, much higher than the New York Times, which seems to have hit new lows in reporting on the McCain story. The News Hour can drag a bit but I look forward to watching it every evening. Frontline is consistently the best news show on television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:08 PM	Beth and Jim Simpson : We are long time PBS news fans. We NEVER watch the regular channel national news, or heaven forbid, the local news. PBS news is unbiased, intellegent, and relevant. Thank you.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:06 PM	Susan Walton : I cannot believe a supposedly erudite newspaper as the New York Times could think that the time for PBS is over. Where else on television or radio can you find national and international news discussed and critiqued by reporters we know and respect. PBS seeks to keep a balance to in-depth commentaries, and carefully represents both sides of an issue consistantly. I can not imagine my life without PBS and I do not want to.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:05 PM	Kajamian : The first years I had cable, I thought PBS was redundant. We had some fabulous channels like Discovery, TLC, Bravo, Mind-TV that had almost everything and more variety than PBS. Sadly, they have become "dumbed down" to a shadow of what they were. But PBS just keeps chuggin' along - Friday night is news night, Saturday night is Britcom night! Better reality TV than anything the networks have aired. Charlie Rose, NOVA, Frontline & World, Wired, Mystery, Masterpiece Theatre, Great Performances, Rick Steves, This Old House, Roadshow, Animalia, Jakers!...on and on. I don't even mind pledge week because they have great music shows & specials on - and often interview the stars during the breaks. Even with cable channels, about 90% of the time, my set is on KOPB! Thank you to viewers like us!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:05 PM	G. Andrews : The PBS newshour is the best news broadcast on television today. It really give's you news and information in an in depth way that network newscasts don't. At some point in the past 20 years network news went from a public service to profit center. Television news executives say, "news needs to be more intertaining". I personally don't want or need to be entertained when I watch the news. Edward R. Murrow is probably trying to claw his way out of his grave when he sees what's happened to news in this country.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:05 PM	Barb from Rogue River : I think anyone who questions the necessity of Public Television has a narrow range of vision!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:04 PM	Ellen : If it were not for PBS, I would not watch television at all. Over the last decade or more, when I have turned to other networks, I have either shut off the TV or turned to PBS. Often there is an offering to be found there that is fascinating, beautiful or informative. Life without PBS would indeed make the medium of television a vast wasteland. A part of PBS programming that I regularly depend on is the Lehrer NewsHour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:04 PM	Nam : The Newshour is the only news show that I tune to almost daily (Unless you count c-span). It is topical, unbiased and relevant- I am eternally grateful for not having to watch any Britney Spears-related mind numbing nonsense that passes for news on other channels. Washington week in review is also a household favourite. PBS rules in our home- especially with our 6 year old kid-thank you PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:04 PM	donald l porter : PBS in general and "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" in particular are absolutely required by the American publix if they are to have a chance to get a true picture of American and world cultures and news. The federal government must continue to support this enterprise financially in the interests of it's citizenry

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:03 PM	sandy : The newshour is the highest quality news that I've only been able to find on PBS. Thank goodness it doesn't offer the numerous 30 second video sensations of the day that you see on network and cable news; but rather it offers in-depth discussions that are interesting and informative. I look forward to watching it every night.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:02 PM	JoAnne : The idea that The News Hour is dated and showing its age is not valid to me. All you have to do is watch the commercial news each evening, with many sides about inane issues, and then compare them to the News Hour, and you have to realize the value of PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:02 PM	Artiste : I have watched PBS and listened to NPR since they have been on the air. I am informed citizen because of these essential treasures. I want to personally drive the stake through the heart of the Right Wing Bogeyman who arises periodically to try to murder these Great American Assets. May the Bogeman never succeed in killing PBS and NPR. Thank you especially, Jim Lehrer.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:02 PM	Rhonda Hanson Weaver : The News Hour is the MOST relevant news broadcast available to TV viewers. The News Hour get to the heart of the news through unbiased, comprehensive investigative reporting and interviewing. It's the source we trust because we know that Public Television is not pandering to ratings. Plus Jim and Gwen both add authenticity and honesty.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:01 PM	James Landi : The New York Times is fighting to stay relevant, and the article in question is surely not a serious reflection of the power of PBS. The article serves to heighten our culture's lack of awareness about the power of television journalism and transporting artistic production and achievement seen on PBS. PBS will never go away, because nothing, absolutely nothing that has been or will be offered will ever fulfill the need that PBS satisfies.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:01 PM	Betsey : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and colleagues is the most important news source in this household: independent, balanced and including discussions untouched by commercial news programs, PBS news is unparalled.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:00 PM	Carol : I will never pay for cable and I will never watch network television! If I watch TV, I only watch public television and every night I watch the Lehrer News Hour because I don't feel like digging around on the internet after work. I trust the Lehrer News Hour to be serious, thoughtful, and complex--unlike other TV news sources.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:59 PM	P.J. van Blokland : I was brought up in England with the BBC and have lived here as a Republican, no less, for 36 years. You chaps are the only game in town. The rest is simply rubbish.I would always vote for a tax increase if you got it

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:59 PM	Janet : PBS and especially the News Hour are the only place where one cen get news in depth. Both local newscasts and local newspapers present superficial reports. News magazines that formerly provided background in depth now merely present overviews and opinion pieces. PBS programs provide an essential service!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:58 PM	Richard Walton : There are sound bites and news encapsulations, but no where are there such exceptional, in-depth interviews, discussions and presentations by such talented reporters as on PBS. We NEVER miss it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:54 PM	Fay Tucker : PBS, and the News Hour in particular, are invaluable resources for anyone who feels the need to be well informed. They present in-depth background and view all sides of the issues. We just invested in a "TIVO" type device so we can make sure we never miss the News Hour. PBS is essential to our lives!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:51 PM	Michael Howard : We watch PBS a lot especially the News Hour every evening. What are we supposed to watch to get the news-----incessant commercials between stories which often aren't very deep. PBS is totally relevant. I too am disappointed in the New York Times which I stopped reading years ago.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:50 PM	Sayed Sultan : The PBS is the only broadcast organization in the country that presents unbaised, in-depth, sophisticated, objective, and honest news and topical programs. Without the Newshour for example, a window to what's happening in the world will be shuttered forever.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:48 PM	Pat : Someone must have been taking an illegal substance to have come up with such a silly notion. Public Radio and Public television are our primary news sources. Their folks are professional, competent and hide their own biases very well. The Times must be trying to eliminate their primary competition for news; give it a rest.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:44 PM	Barb L : PBS is a national treasure for the breadth and depth of its topical coverage. Intelligent TV is rare anyplace but there. Most critical of the service PBS provides are the two news shows, The News Hour and BBC World News. Those shows are the last places remaining to find actual news coverage on TV. Journalism is simply missing from television elsewhere.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:43 PM	Frank B Gregory : The moral fiber of our country has been trashed by commercial television. The News Hour eith Jim Lehrer and most of the other programs PBS airs are factual,honest and uplifting. A credit to the United States. PBS is the only channel I care to watch.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:32 PM	Kathleen : The Iraq war convinced me that we need the well-rounded, unbiased discussions that PBS provides, unlike the New York Time.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:29 PM	Dave Seaton : Mr. McGrath has a point. PBS, public television, is tired. It may be the channel that changes the viewer, but too many savvy viewers are changing to A&E, Discovery and their favorite nitch channels. National Public Radio is another matter, as McGrath says. What he does not say is that radio has almost totally deteriorated into pop music, country music and forgettable talk. (Love that folk music on the Prairie Home Companion,) NPR is, indeed, focused and original. For those of us in rural America, NPR is a window on the world. So is PBS, whether Mr. McGrath notices or not. As newspapers go hyper-local, we rely on programs like the NewsHour and Frontline to put political and international news in context. Both do so in depth and extraordinarily well. My suggestion is that PBS further emphasize public affairs programming. The key is getting truly expert voices on. This is what Jim Lehr does, and it works. We need clarity, not confusion as we sort out the news. Charlie Rose and Bill Moyers are both helpful in their own ways. Rather than compete directly with A&E, etc., PBS should dig deeper into public affairs and make itself even more necessary to the public's understanding of events. This can be done at the local and state levels as well as nationally and internationally. Well-crafted documentaries should be part of this focus. PBS should be bold. The scramble for money has made PBS shy, in Washington and Wichita.There is a new void in the mass media, and it is the meaninglessness of the news to too many Americans. PBS can fill that void. It should. (And PBS should decide in the process to keep and revitalize its childrens' programming. The void there is non-violent programming)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:25 PM	Mary sommerset : PBS TV is ESSENTIAL for non-biased news reporting; educational films; and self-discovery. Without it we will be moving toward a big-brother monitored TV or pure pablum. Keep PBS TV on the air!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:24 PM	Leigh M : Both the News Hour and the Journal are the best of television. I can't imagine life without them.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:22 PM	Umakant : Absolutly Yes !! -- PBS is needed. On countless occassions I have admired PBS programmes for their un-matched quality of content and it would be like losing a close friend in its absence. Please do not even think of closing PBS..

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:17 PM	bnr : To compare PBS news shows and programing to regular network fare is to realize that PBS is a necessary oasis of intelligence and insight. Is it relevant? Not if you are dedicated to dumbing down America.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:15 PM	JONNY : As a news junkie, I find some good in all news outlets, those disseminated in print and those through the broadcast media (with the possible exception of Fox and the NY Post). I would cite MSNBC reporter Keith Olbermann as one who presents the news with integrity, accuracy, and wit. However, he has made some subtle barbs at his network's administration for pushing him toward more infotania. Given this situation, and the problem of the increasing numbers of commercials permitted to run each hour, PBS is an oasis that feeds those of us who want more thoughtful presentation and intelligent, uninterrupted programming and debate. Like many others,I contribute to PBS so that it can survive and flourish. Our lives would be greatly diminished without PBS, and as a lifelong fan of the NY Times I am greatly disappointed in this article. They should be researching and writing on the real problems of our society, and not attacking PBS. We expect greater balance from them, and the other comments I have read seem to reflect a perception of a lack of balance toward PBS in this particular article.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:14 PM	Ty : "Is PBS Still Necessary?" A resounding "Yes! Now more than ever!" Churchill said "The price of democracy is eternal vigilance." Without PBS (and especially "The News Hours") the electorate wouldn't have a clue as what to look for. "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer" is THE GOLD standard of news reporting (fair & balanced with a gentle touch of editorial common sense). After every "News Hour" I say a silent "thank you" for PBS; it's the only government program that's worth more (far, far more) that the tax money put into it. There are three public broadcasting stations in my area and I belong to all three. As far as the NYT is concerned; I have two things to say: "Jayson Blair" and "Judith Miller".

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:14 PM	Joan Haliday : Lehrer News Hour is so important to me. My friends and family know I spend 7-8 p.mp EDT each evening watching that show so they don't call me. I do it because the news staff are truly "fair and balanced" and I feel they work hard to provide both sides of an issue. The program presents calmly--no hysterics or rumoring. I love the respect with which they show military deaths with pictures when made available! I always encourage my friends and relatives who always watch cable news shows to watch the News Hour for the reasons listed. I love that they present poetry, biographies and expand news in other areas of the world when they can. I feel that what they put out, I can trust as believable. Don't ever take it off---It is needed by many who care about quality.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:11 PM	Barbara : PBS continues to be an excellent venue for good television viewing. Only on the Lehrer News Hour can we find rational, intelligent discussion of the important issues of the day. Regular programs like Nova, Frontline, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, provide information and broaden our knowledge and horizons. Live from Lincoln Center and the great specials of James Taylor, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell to name a few are a delight to watch. As far as the "commercials" are concerned, they are between programs (time for the bathroom break). Think how much greater PBS would be if it were funded by the government proportional to its quality.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:11 PM	Alan R, Anderson : There is so little good in-depth news coverage on TV, uninterrupted by advertising, that the loss of The News Hour would be catastrophic.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:10 PM	Brooks Osgood : PBS is the best thing that every happened to television in the United States. I watch it regularly. I learn from it regularly. I have taped countless programs and printed off teaching materials to use in college courses I teach. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a well done documentary about tuna migration, Chinese economic advances, World War II, etc. is worth 100,000 words. NOVA and Frontline are required viewing for me, after the News Hour. Special series, Nature, NOW, Bill Moyers Journal, the Nightly Business Report, POV, Independent Lens, and others are beyond comparison and extremely informative. Although I have over 24 hours of network coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the program by NOVA and that of Frontline on Katrina pull it all together and with a fair and level tone so my students don't complain about bias. Frankly PBS is more relevant than ever!!!!! Brooks Osgood

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:10 PM	Lucie Clark : Losing either PBS or NPR an option I refuse to accept.How could anyone consider cutting off programs as vital to our democracy as "The News Hour","Washington Week" and "Bill Moyers'Journal"? I will do all I can to support you all the way. Lucie Clark

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:08 PM	Patricia Groh : Yes, public television could use some new programming but it's still the only source for thorough, unbiased news reporting on televsion. Please don't leave us with CNN, Fox and the rushed, hysterical coverage on network news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:05 PM	Richard Geisler : If PBS is not there to tell us the true story who will? Not the major networks, who were never able to and can't now because of their sponsers. Not Link or Free Speech TV, who are not totally unbiased.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:05 PM	Patrick : I love both PBS and NPR. The fact that there are cable stations that now carry similar programs ignores the fact that there are many people who cannot afford cable television. For them, PBS is the only alternative to the networks (and their fluff and commericals). The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is a crucial source for me being an informed citizen. Mark Shields and David Brooks give the best political wrapup out there.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:04 PM	philip snyder : PBS is the MOST IMPORTANT television network in all of television. It is a public treasure. Any dimuniation of service is a capital crime!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:03 PM	Charles in Salt Lake City : Of course, PBS is relevant and essential in a free, democratic society. It is tiresome that Republicans never want balance, just a significant right tip of the scale, since they despise any liberal presentation at all, regardless of how well balanced it may be. They must be afraid of the truth and that balance could change someone's mind. It is disgusting that they continually try to erase the small Federal support that is received by PBS, but try to sneak taxpayer dollars to church groups, etc., which clearly violates our Constitution. Frontline is one of the most incredible, in depth programs on the air - carefully researched and well presented. Newshour with Jim Lehrer is vastly superior to any other current news program. The in depth debates are informative and balanced, with PBS taking no side. I much prefer PBS election conference to the mainstream media. They are not competing to "call" the races in an attempt at hype and ratings.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:01 PM	J'nene : My husband and I watch are faithful watchers of PBS, especially the News Hour with Jim Lerher. It provides us with timely, in-depth, thought-provoking news. Our special favorites are David Brooks and Mark Shields, who offer two viewpoints never viewed on the commercial news networks. The snippets of sensational news on CBS, NBC, etc. never satisfy our need for intelligent, thoughtful, informative news. To lose this news medium would be an unutterable shame. We, also, enjoy much of the programing available on PBS such as Oregon Art Beat, Nature, Nova, Oregon Field Guide,and Antiques Roadshow, to name but a few. We gift to OPB and hope that PBS will continue to be a large part of our television enjoyment. Our radio entertainment is provided by NPR and a local classical radio station. Thank you for this opportunity to voice our views. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:58 PM	carol jigarjian : The idea that PBS is irrelevant is a lie manufactured by those who want all the news to reflect their politics. Their hoping that a lie repeated often enough will be believed. PBS and programs such as Jim Lehrer's News Hour are about the only sources of accurate unbiased information and in-depth news analysis that we have left. Far too many news outlets provide biased, incomplete, sloppy, flip and snide "reporting," particularly those that are being swallowed up by a few large conglomerates whose CEO's want the facts skewed to fit their politics. These people no doubt wish PBS were irrelevant because they want programs like Lehrer's News Hour, Bill Moyers' Journal and David Bronchoccilo's Now to be ignored. Don't be surprised if they declare the New York Times to be irrelevant as well.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:57 PM	Betty S. : The NewsHour is (and has been) a mainstay in our household---clear reporting on controversial issues, no hype. Can I get such quality reporting and discussion elsewhere at the same price I now pay? No, I have to pay a lot more. And other PBS offerings? Great, at my price or any other! As long as basic cable offerings include Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN, we will need a rational alternative. That's PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:54 PM	Joan Jendro : I can hardly even consider life without PBS and NPR. Thank God for all the people who feel the same way and say so with funds to help public television keep our nation free and free thinking. The Jim Lehrer News Hour provides in-depth news coverage unavailable on any other TV or radio station. Most importanly it is news presented with opposing viewpoints, the only way to get at the truth. I am grateful for Jim Lehrer and the entire news staff for excellent, professional reporting of the highest quality. I watch no other news program. PBS is relevant, refreshing and the News Hour is as important to our democratic socity as voting. Joan Jendro

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:53 PM	Buddy : Like many others have said, the News Hour is the ONLY news program worth watching on TV. Unlike everything else out there it's in-depth, accurate and INDEPENDENT. It would be a national tragedy if it went off the air.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:50 PM	Eugenia : My husband and I rely greatly upon PBS for qualit6y programming; we have supported it, learned from it, and enjoyed it for many years. We rarely miss the News Hour With Jim Lehrer. We appreciate the interesting guests and the time allowed for balanced analysis of the daily news. We particularly look forward to Friday night on the News Hour with David Brooks (a Republican) and Mark Shields (a Democrat) disagreeing often but sometimes agreeing. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:49 PM	c. hauer : More than ever we need the News-Hour. There is no other place one can get a balanced and in depth view of the news. Commercial TV is just that, full of commercials with very short intervals of news. Thank you PBS for all your fine programming.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:49 PM	Alex Yatsevitch : For us, PBS is not about entertainment programs, on which the Times spent most of its commentary, but about the only source of serious news about serious events that affect all our lives, without the spin and propaganda of special interests, political and commercial, of network television dependent on ratings and market competition. The world presented according to profit potential has little to do with reality. In competition, profit trumps truth.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:47 PM	mary travers : the only statement i agree with wholeheratedly is that your fundraising is akin to waterboarding and no doubt that it is a form of torture. What kind of dopey critique of THE best news show on the air-the News Hour-is that Jim Lehrer is 75? I am a faithful nightly viewer. However, even tho I dearly love Hyacinth, I have never watched the ballroom dancing... Since I have your attention-why not go back to real yesteryear (ask Jim Lehrer) and broadcast only so many hours a day or evening. Perhaps put us to bed at 11? Finally, I am an NPR morning listener - if i am at home. you might be interested to know that in NYC the signal is so poor in the early AM and afterabout 5:30 that you must tun yor dial to the FM station. Usually more trouble then it is worth. I learned that when I called the station several years ago to complain of the interference that made it almost unlistenable. keep up the news hour but you probably would like to know our budget will no lonter stretch to support as many things as in the past which includes I am afraid Channel 13 adn definitely Channel 21. I am edging over the NY Channel 1 lately.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:46 PM	Trevor Phillips : So "Masterpiece" is low on funds. I'm willing to double my pledge/subscription to PBS to help recapture the glories of past decades memorialized by that show, and "Mystery."

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:45 PM	james : My son Derek who is going to turn eighteen this year reminded me to log in today to let people know that the Newshour is one of the best shows on television. Where else can you get that amount of information on an event? Which network news show has balanced guest speakers that talk in depth about the issues? He and I agree that the Newshour is one of the most important shows on television today. PBS shows as the Times article pointed out has been copied by many cable channels. That proves what PBS has to offer is innovative and should be funded even more.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:44 PM	sonic_love : Reading the NYT article was like seeing a preview of the Idiocracy principle in effect. If you haven't seen the movie Idiocracy, I highly recommend it. While it's not exactly the greatest plot per se, the premise is spot on. It's exactly where America is headed. The idea that Cable TV could supplant PBS is so unfathomably preposterous! Have you actually watched Cable TV? It's garbage on a loop. It's junk food for the mind. Programs like Frontline, Nova, NewsHour, Bill Moyers, Nature, etc. - these do more than just switch on your brain, they actually get the gears turning. Imagine a nation full of minds that can actually process, not merely BE processed.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:43 PM	TammyT : Living in one of the minority of television households who only receive television throught the old antenae technology, PBS, and the News Hour specifically, provide the in-depth stories that the 24-hour cable networks only wish they could. This provides intelligent discussion of current events to ALL viewers, not just those who are of a mind to pay for television via cable (which I can't get) or satellite. I want my PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:41 PM	linda wiest : I love listening to PBS and have for many years. How would we know what's going on without 'The News Hour?' This looks like another instance of 'The Times' going off the deep end! What's come over them? We all need PBS and all its wonderful programs including 'This Old House' and 'Globe Trekker,' among others. Just disregard 'The Times,' as the rest of us have grown used to doing, lately.......

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:40 PM	Helen Wilson : As I tell people during our local PBS and NPR fund drives, I think they are two of the most responsible, good-citizen entities in our nation. Speed the day when other aspects of American culture approach their quality! With gratitude, my husband and I have included them in our wills.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:38 PM	Ord : PBS provides programming that is a quantum leap ahead of commercial broadcasting. Even given its laughably underfunded budget, PBS is a tremendous public resource across the spectrum, from reporting, to science and educational programming, to children's television. As an educator, I frequently mine information from PBS programming to supplement coursework. To remove PBS from the airwaves would deal perhaps the single largest blow to the quality of television journalism and programming since the advent of television as a forum for mass communication.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:37 PM	Jim Leonard : PBS not relevant? Select your favorite news program (CNN, Fox, CNBC, networks, whatever). Compare it (them) side by side with The Newshour with Jim Lehrer for one month. I rest my case.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:36 PM	Tom and Barbara Bath : We are faithful News Hour fans. Jim Lehrer is amazing as he continually is able to get to the important facts of a story. It is a special treat when we know he will be on the air when we tune into channel 6. Judy Woodruff has been a pleasant addition to the staff and Margaret Warner is very incisive. I do not agree with the earlier post that said she showed some bias. Ray Suarez and Gwen Ifill provide good back up for Jim. We used to really enjoy the MacNeill-Lehrer team also. We do take the Sunday Times and we noticed the article and quickly disagreed with it, wondering where it came from. Friday nights we enjoy getting our political "fix" with the line-up of the News Hour, Washington Week, Yeller Journalism, Now, and Bill Moyers. We have such good memories of Paul Duke on Washington Week. Guess you could say that we are news junkies...there are worse habits! We do read the local papers, the Christian Science Monitor, the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, Sunday NYT, Newsweek, Business Week, US News, National Geographic, Smithsonian, American Scientist, the New Yorker, Scientific American. Oh my, it is a good thing we are retired (and we recycle). The point of all of this litany is that the News Hour is crucial to our daily life. We look at the criticism of PBS as just a little irritant. We need independent news in this day of polarized views. Keep up the good work and thanks.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:33 PM	Nancy A Nadeau : I believe strongly that PBS is the best TV on TV. It is the only place where I always get entertaining education and where I can trust the information I get. The News Hour is as unbiased as humans can be, and I get real news instead of sensationalism that is so prevalent, even on former news shows. I believe PBS is the most relevant TV available today. It is almost all I watch.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:32 PM	tucsonan : While the NYTimes was not entirely off the mark where repetitious programs are concerned, what would we do without the Newshour (not as strong as it used to be), NOW, Bill Moyers, Nova, Frontline, Independent Lens, and others, which are our only sources of intelligent thought in this morass of Britney et al. stupidity. ABC, NBC, CBS hardly give us news since they seem to toe the official line, very much like the NYTimes! This country is the most ill-informed in the world, so it is small wonder that the Republican gang would like to continue the stupefying distribution of non-news. As some contributors to this comment page have said, without PBS and its intelligent programs out goes the TV set, and the computer goes to foreign news. Where is the Last of the Summer Wine?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:30 PM	Gretchen Metz : Hardly is the Newshour and PBS not relevent! The newshour is the only news broadcast I watch. The reason:it is the only source available on TV, other than the Canadian stations, that I can trust that the reporting will be unbiased and truthful. At least as unbiased as it can be, given our present administration and their control of PBS. In this age of corporate control of our media, it is essential that the people have a source of free, unbiased news reporting. It is the only way we can claim we still have a democracy.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:29 PM	Mary in Ohio : The ONLY National/World news I watch is The Newshour. I could find other broadcasts to support my point of view, but that is NOT what I want. I want both sides. (And after the latest cable increase, I dropped all but "Broadcast Basic," so I need "free" access to such a program.I am retired and on a fixed income, but not yet ready to resign myself to not thinking!)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:27 PM	MAK & LSS : The premise of the NYT article is absurd! PBS offers one of the few naional and international news programs, (The News Hour), that provides in depth unbiased coverage of important and relevent current events. Perhaps a more relevent question would be whether the NYT lacks the credibility to pose such a question.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:25 PM	Fraser & Barbara MacHaffie : Over the years we have given serious consideration to discontinuing our TV service - we're dependent on increasingly expensive cable - but the NewsHour is one of the few reasons why we have continued as viewers. (It's almost amusing to hear the network news programs idetifying segments as "In Depth.")

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:24 PM	Rich : The majority of the programs on PBS are better than anything that you can find on other commercial network programming. It is far and away the best source of accurate news, and importantly, news of substance. Even if these were not my wife's initials, I would still say that I love PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:23 PM	Monte : PBS and NPR constitute a national treasure, especially the news programs. We seldom watch any other channel or listen to other radio stations. Although programming and personnel may, on occasion, merit some criticism, they are certainly much better than any of the commercial stations.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:22 PM	Kathleen McDonald : The only channel really worth watching if you have network TV is PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:21 PM	V. Shar : I truly appreciate the opportunity to watch a program in which one third of the time is not taken up by commercials. When I watch the news hour I get an hour of news. There is time to go into some depth about the events covered since the program does not consist of sound bites sandwiched between messages from sponsors. I also enjoy the opportunity to see programs that do not depend on ratings numbers to get corporations to part with their advertising dollars. Alas, Mass Media is often Crass Media.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:20 PM	Michele Alexander : PBS in general and the Newshour in particular are the creme de la creme, the only true aristocracy of news, a 'great' notch above, credible, trusworthy and quite unique in this day and age. Thank you, PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:20 PM	Kay Olinger : Jim Lehrer and his staff have been my daily news source for years because I can believe what is aired on the News Hour and I learn so much from the discussions of guests with differing views on important issues.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:19 PM	Taffet : We love the newshour with Jim and his staff.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:17 PM	Sally Tuttle : I do not have a lot of time to watch TV. I want to keep up with what is going on so I have the PBS, NPR or C-Span 1 or 2 while do my work that does not take a lot of concentration. I listen and watch the news as I cook dinner. No other news give you the dept and background information to understand what is going on in the world.I always select PBS for my TV programs. They are always more interesting than anything else on TV. I learn everyday from PBS and NPR and would be very sad if the people of the United States would not have both. Sally Tuttle

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:16 PM	Marilyn Ferguson : Is PBS necessary? Absolutely, yes. Is the News Hour necessary? Even more absolutely YES. Far from being "musty", News Hour actually presents news, not "infotainment", they do not talk down to viewers, do not insult our intelligence. There is a depth of coverage and a variety of topics that networks cannot/willnot provide. News Hour is one of my main sources of news. The other is my local newspaper, the Santa Rosa Press Democrat, owned by NY Times!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:14 PM	Art Strassenberg : Public television is, for me, an important source of high quality programming. Yes, there are other new and varied sources that offer good content. Yet I am drawn to PBS for its programming. Where can you find anything that truly compares to Frontline and Nova? Even moreso, show me any news program that provides the depth and independent breadth of coverage to the News Hour. I regret the reported decline in viewer ratings which seems to support the question of popularity of quality programs vs the vast morass. Yes, I do find some improved offerrings in some areas... but PBS remains the quintessential base from which I view.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:11 PM	WinScott : NOTE: RE-SUBMISSION (ADDED “Bill Moyer’s fine journalism” in the third sentence.) If you can use this in place of previous (just submitted a few minutes ago) I’d appreciate it. Reading Charles McGrath’s NY Times article on PBS made me think I was having an “Alice in Wonderland” experience. Is this the same PBS that is the mainstay of my TV watching? Is this the same PBS that brings me The News Hour’s in-depth news coverage, Bill Moyer’s fine journalism, the superb documentaries, wonderful science and social commentary programs? Mr. McGrath, the PBS I know is by no means “musty or fusty!” It is vibrant and it is vital to our democratic society at a time when we’re in danger of drowning in a sea of commercial excess; in a society where the “commercial break” is more important than what goes in between and where media ownership is being consolidated and centrally controlled. Thank heaven Congress continues to respond to PBS viewers and NPR listeners by overriding the Bush administration’s self-serving funding cuts to Public Broadcasting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:10 PM	Pam Niedermayer : This article was ridiculous. True that there's a lot of quality BBC programming on cable stations, but at what price? And there's nothing to replace PBS news shows, which I find as vital as the NY Times to stay informed. I think more gov't money should be going to PBS, not less.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:10 PM	Alan : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (formerly, the McNeal-Lehrer News Hour) has been the one constant in my life for nearly 30 years. (When absent, I tape it. When traveling, I find out when it is televised in the locale I am visiting, and watch it when convenient.) Today's cable news saturation coverage lacks the same depth (and limitations in breadth) that network news has always lacked. I liken the NewsHour's daily coveage selections to that of the Wall Street Journal's non-financial daily news coverage -- an in-breadth review, and an in-depth report and analysis on three or four key stories. Over time, with either (or both) the News Hour and the WSJ, one becomes well informed. I once heard a media analyst refer to the News Hour as "the well informed becoming even better informed." I think that's right. A close friend, a fellow conservative, refers to it as "news for elitists." (He only watches Fox News. To each his own.) The fact that this is PBS programming and, therefore, has no commercial interruptions is of course an added bonus. I am privately a very critical person. No source of news or news analysis is perfect. But my quibbles with the News Hour (unlike some other programming on PBS and NPR) are rather minor. My most substantial question asks to what extent their relationships with underwriters determine what types of stories they cover. For example, in my case, I'm pleased with their occasional focus on the economy and on health (even though the decision to do it may be underwriter driven), but I remain disinterested in their occasional focus on poetry (which is of such low interest and relevance that I presume it must be underwriter driven). But far more importantly, I see a very sincere and largely successful effort to have balance in every analytical piece. I also read the local paper for local news here on Hilton Head Island; I am quite active in my community. Both previously in Pennsylvania and now here, I read the WSJ, watch C-Span, enjoy Hard Ball with Chris Matthews on MS-NBC, and selectively watch other news and analytical programming. But, the News Hour is my anchor. The anchor holds.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:04 PM	Susan : My husband & I have long been fans of the News Hour, which we consider the sole remaining source of thoughtful television news, absent the gimmickry, celebrity-driven infortainment, or ideologically driven material that other news providers have embraced. Lehrer is a welcoming nonpolarizing repected figure, still relevant, as is the show that bears his name - in fact, more so now than ever, as serious news options become rare. Lately, Americans seem to have increasingly shied away from the notion of quality, perhaps out of fear of charges of elititism, yet PBS provides precisely that - quality news, quality programming in general. Cable offerings, even of a historical, scientific, arts or documentary nature, simply don't stack up in terms of the quality of the scholarship, content, presentation, and level of intellectual engagement at PBS. Above all, for those not able to purchase cable or a dish, public television is precisely that - public and accessible regardless of one's economic circumstances, unlike the "comparable" program sources cited by the New York Times. Lastly, kudos on the recent show, African American Lives, which was extremely well done, educational, riveting and relevant. Where else might that program have been done if not at PBS? Thank you for your years of excellence, which we hope continue well into the future.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:03 PM	Brian (A Native Texan), Not that Dimestore Cowboy from Connecticut that calls himself president : Copied my comments to the NY Times below... Mr Lehrer - YOU HAVE OUR FULL SUPPORT !!! Brian (A Native Texan), Not that Dimestore Cowboy from Connecticut that calls himself President... Dear President of the NY Times - I just thought that you should recognize that the Feb. 17th , Charles McGrath story, "Is PBS Still Necessary?" has caused your paper to lose a lot of credibility with those that realize how critical it is in a Functional Democracy to get the factual, unbiased News..... As a Journalist of the "Newspaper of Record" you may have noticed, the increased Media Concentration in the hands of Rupert Murdoch and others with a Extreme Right Wing Agenda and their manipulation of the facts and outright lies to the general public. Mudoch, Rove, Cheney, Bush and the Extreme Right Wing have decided to make part of their playbook the lessons from George Orwell's "1984" and "Animal Farm" and their propoganda and "doublespeak" is reminiscent of past and present Communist and Totalitarianism Regimes... It may be the opinion of Mr. McGrath that he does not find Mr. Lehrer as "Entertaining" as Britney or American Idol or other Pop Culture...and I encourage him to find his remote and change the channel if he does not like it...or become a PBS member to pay for better progamming...but don't subject the rest of us to his tastes... IT'S ABOUT CONTENT !!!! I don't care how old he is....(I am half his age)...but still value the factual and unbiased content he provides... However, UNLIKE MR. MCGRATH AND THE OTHERS IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC... Perhaps Mr. Lehrer has a longer attention span and remembers US History Mr bush (sic/and SICK) has just made us re-live the 70's with "Executive Privilege", Crimes in excess of Watergate, a War for the wrong reason "Vietnam Domino Theory vs Greed for Oil"...with an added spice of Nazi / Communist Gulags (Guitmo and Illegal Renditions)...and Warrantless Wiretapping that would make the Gestapo and KGB proud... Perhaps Mr. McGrath would prefer a Bubble Headed Blonde Bimbo along the lines of Anne Coulter spewing hatred "1984's 30 Minutes of Hate"...with the lies and with our involvement in a never ending war to justify the abuses of Power this Administration has imposed because as in "1984" "War is Peace"... Now More Than Ever - We Need THE INDEPENDENT AND FACTUAL NEWS...to stop us from slipping back after hundreds of years of progress to Totalitarianism, or Monarchy, like a Third World Country with NO MIDDLE CLASS and the injustice and desparities between the HAVEs and HAVE NOTs.... Perhaps the mcgraths and bushes of the world and other rich cronies want to make the USA into this...but they could arrive at it faster by taking over a Third World Country and LEAVE MINE ALONE !!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:57 PM	WinScott : Reading Charles McGrath’s NY Times article on PBS made me think I was having an “Alice in Wonderland” experience. Is this the same PBS that is the mainstay of my TV watching? Is this the same PBS that brings me The News Hour’s in-depth news coverage, the superb documentaries, wonderful science and social commentary programs? Mr. McGrath, the PBS I know is by no means “musty or fusty!” It is vibrant and it is vital to our democratic society at a time when we’re in danger of drowning in a sea of commercial excess; in a society where the “commercial break” is more important than what goes in between and where media ownership is being consolidated and centrally controlled. Thank heaven Congress continues to respond to PBS viewers and NPR listeners by overriding the Bush administration’s self-serving funding cuts to Public Broadcasting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:52 PM	Susan M. : The News Hour and the BBC news on PBS are the best news programs on television. I especially want to thank Jim Lehrer for keeping faith with the men and women lost in the Iraq war.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:52 PM	Patty Carstens : This article was like an arrow driven straight into my heart. I give up many things to watch the Jim Lehrer show every day that I can. This is a show that keeps me sane. The show is heads and tails above anything else that is presented on TV because of the quality, the variety and best of all, the civil discussions which present both views of all topics. This is a class act, and the very best news show offered today. It makes me sick to have somebody write an article in such a dismissive way as Charlie McGrath. He has no clue how this show is valued. He probably is in favor of the shouting matches in between all the commercials on other channels. Please encourage the government not to cut the funding for this valuable show, along with many others on this PBS channel. If this show goes, then there will be no unbiased news channel. Let's pray for a change in new government which will see the value of unbiased news broadcasts and other high quality shows. We do not need violence to get high ratings.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:51 PM	David Bloch : I was offended by the article in the Times and particularly by its derisory reference to the NewsHour and Jim Lehrer. At 32 and living in Chelsea, Manhattan, I hardly fit the crusty PBS viewer Mr. McGrath imagines exists and can say only that, for me, the NewsHour is the sole news program worth watching on television. I hate CNN as without substance, I detest Fox as existing outside reality, I loathe the network news as vacuous; the NewsHour is the best. And, far from being a tired old man, as Mr. McGrath insinuates, Mr. Lehrer comes across to me as trustworthy and sober and his colleagues similarly so, all in all the few in televised journalism able to sustain a story longer than 30 seconds and to be analytical. Whom does McGrath like? Brian Williams? Anderson Cooper? Really, the McGrath article is absurd. I love my PBS every bit as much as NPR, and it's every bit as relevant to me.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:48 PM	millyellen : pbs is relevant, informative and presents various opinions. i have been watching jim lehrer news hour for years. as a voice of the 30 and younger crowd, we need pbs and the news hour. i don't want to hear a plug for a current tv show like lost or survivor when i watch the news. the news hour gives depth and professionalism you don't get elsewhere. pbs gets our money, not the cable or direct tv company. when we watch pbs we don't feel like an agenda is being pushed or tv is dumbing us down. we feel motivated and challenged to think and analyze a presentation after viewing it. thanks pbs.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:48 PM	greer : I just tried to submit a comment and was blocked because I "had submitted too many comments," yet I have submitted none except that one and this one! I love PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:46 PM	Greer : PBS is almost the only channel I watch with regularity. The "free" stations are loaded with junk, interspaced with more junk (commercials, longer and longer). The situation deteriorates daily. The News Hour is still terrific, no matter how long Jim's been doing it. Is the New York Times jealous of folks who can take an important issue, research it and introduce us to all sides in more intelligible, concise language than the Times? Yes, some shows should be booted off: Are You Being Served should have died in the 70's! And the dance shows -- where do they get those underdressed, over made up robots? I wish PBS had MORE MONEY! I understand there are other newer British shows that we would enjoy just as much as we've enjoyed the BritComs now on. PBS needs more money, not less. Cable is for those who want to spend money on mega-vapidity!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:46 PM	Elizabeth Burke : There is no other way for me to receive the news than via public broadcasting. All the rest is "buy and blast." I appreciate sane discussions of both sides of any question, the this what one gets from The Newshour. Vive le public broadcasting system.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:46 PM	Ruth and Elliot : The Times article about PBS was mere demagoguery. It was full of loaded words, distortions, and vituperation. It derided Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio for "handwringing"--for soberly reporting major injustices and abuses. Moyers's "Journal" and "Frontline" with Brancaccio are indispensable. "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer" and "The Week in Review" with Gwen Ifil are likewise without peer on commercial TV. Where on the latter can you find economic enlightenment comparable to Paul Solman's explanations on "Newshour"? These programs alone would justify continued support of PBS even without the cultural enrichment of "Nova," "Masterpiece," and various imports from the BBC.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:44 PM	Michael Whitehead : Sad to say there's a certain amount of truth to the Times article. I have supported PBS for many years and will continue to do so and when it comes to news progamming, PBS is unsurpassed. BUT...how much Jane Austin and animal shows can a person take? The recent writers strike was an excellent opening for PBS to show its stuff but unfortunately it dropped the ball. Its prime time programing needs a thorough review.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:44 PM	Joy Glazener : Seventy-three: schmeventy-three! I just hope when I’m that age I have a fraction of the intelligence and sharpness of Jim Lehrer. I watch the NewsHour religiously. Seriously, I’m usually all for free-market economics, but there’s one area where it can go awry: television news reporting. If making more profit, getting more viewers than your competitors, and above all avoiding viewer channel-changing is the main driving force behind a news program, reporting and content have got to suffer. Fortunately shows like the NewsHour and Washington Week, etc., don’t have to participate in this race to the bottom or cave in to trivialization and sensationalization. And in a hasty second paragraph: There are oodles of other quality shows I love on PBS, that also don’t have to live and die by whether they’re getting the highest ratings during that time period, thank God! (Not to mention the blissful avoidance of constant commercial interruptions.)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:44 PM	Susan Vesey : I just read the NYT article and the only conclusion I can draw is that the writer may be too young to appreciate PBS. Not that it's an acquired taste (I've been watching since I was a teen). But when you get used to the everyday slum/slugfest that passes for news on the cable networks, I think you become jaded as to what news really is. At least The News Hour sticks to the facts, and has some darn smart guests who can discuss a subject intelligently without resorting to name-calling and innuendos. As for the rest of PBS, well, I just viewed 'Company', the latest in a long line of fine theatrical presentations that I would never have otherwise been able to see. 'The Light in the Piazza', 'Oklahoma', 'South Pacific' and, yes, Jane Austen are just the tip of the iceberg for this network. Call it musty if you will. I call it a lifeline!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:43 PM	Elizabeth Burke : I can't begin to tell you how much The Newshour, Washington Week, Foreign Exchange, and many other NPR, OPB programs mean to me. When I'm not home to view them, I record them for later when I do get home. I watch public TV almost exclusively--about 98.5% of the time that I do watch TV because the rest of TV, the commercial stations are all blast and buy. If one wants relevancy, it is to be found almost exclusively on public TV. That is why so many people, including me, are willing to support it. Vive le Newshour, vive le public broadcasting system.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:42 PM	Kathryn Foley : If I did not have the "News Hour" to watch on PBS I simpley would not watch the news period. What the networks have to offer is what I call "Fast food news." There is no substance to their 60 second blerps they what is called "the coverage in depth" segment doen't last any more than a fast commercial break. The PBS news has done more to educate my family with the issues of the day and gives the topic under discussion more than enough in depth coverage to educate the audience. I feel this nation has allowed it self to be dummy downed enough without taking away one of the best on the air. Is this another take over by Murdock or what!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:40 PM	Sally Duke : For over thirty years, in our Canadian household,the PBS News Hour has been required watching in our house. In addition, it is a tradition for us to watch the entire Friday night line-up of news programming on PBS, which includes Now and the excellent Bill Moyers Joutnal. The NY Times article was a ridiculous attack on the best network on the air. As an American/Canadian dual citizen, I rely on the News Hour for intelligent, balanced reporting of event in the U.S. and the rest of the world and my husband does as well. I frequently recommend it to Canadian friends who are horrified by what they see on the other U.S. networks, so often shrill, shallow and biased. Give me the rational, respectful, in-depth reporting and interviews on the News Hour any time. The other programming on PBS is equally good and blessedly commercial-free, with much to offer for every age. We are so fortunate to have grown up with PBS. Shame on the author of the N.Y Times piece!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:39 PM	Jeffrey and Samuel : My eleven year old son shares my passion for the News Hour and Jim Lehrer in particular!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:38 PM	H. : For the love of God, what is the matter with the news world when Public Television News Hour is threatened with being taken off the air. NEWS is what PBS News Hour is all about - 10/15 minutes for each news story/couple-three different viewpoints with civil, respectful discussions for each news story, and news that leaves the viewer with information so WE can think - PBS New Hour does not tell us HOW to think. Keep up the good work/Cheers

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:37 PM	Sam Kennyson : There would be no option for TV viewing for me without PBS. Commercial TV continues to be a major contributor to the "dumming down" of American society. Commercial TV today is all about "shock value". The more sex, four letter words and homosexualty in it's programming is the only way it can attract viewers. To those of us who grew up in much more moral times, the programming of commercial TV is offensive. Keep up the good work PBS. The New York times will soon be history. The younger generation only reads what is on their computer screen. They don't read newspapers. PBS will be with us a long time. Keep up the wonderful programming.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:37 PM	a hickory : I don't subscribe to cable, Dish, Direct TV, etc. With PBS I'm covered...enough said.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:34 PM	Caroline : Yes, yes, yes, PBS is STILL necessary. Watching The NewsHour is a staple in our home as are many of the other PBS shows including the Charlie Rose Show, Masterpiece Theatre, and the concerts. If quality is important, if non-biased in-depth news reporting is important, if being able to hear people's differing viewpoints discuss an issue is important, if being able to have more than just a snapshot of what is happening in the world is important, then PBS is still very necessary, and the government not only should continue to subsidize PBS, it should subsidize PBS at a much higher level. To me, it’s an argument that I find ridiculous. Something of value and quality is always necessary. So, yes, PBS is still necessary.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:30 PM	Schwartz Mira : PBS a fantastic source for everything from news to arts and entertainment, science, political discourse and a generally neutral point of view. I suspect that most of the members/viewers are of a class that can discern the agendas aspoused if any by the individual programs. PBS seems to be a target for the Bush adminisration. Cut funding------yeah use the savings to do what, how better can he use the meager per citizen costs of PBS??? BRAVO PBS!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:28 PM	Wynne S. : I have been watching the News Hour for the past 14 years, and I know that my understanding of national and world issues is far greater as a result. But I think that the most important thing about the News Hour is the way that it teaches us about the importance of civil discourse in a democracy. All I can say to Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifel, Ray Suarez, Jeffrey Brown & all the others is keep up the great work!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:25 PM	Anne Stern : I would echo Francis Harkens comments about the value of the PBS news programs. More than either cable or other broadcast programs, they offer balanced and intelligent analysis of the news and I depend upon it. My daughter, now 17, was raised on PBS children's programming because I found broadcast programming too violent and the plethora of commercials objectionable. In both news and programming choices, I find PBS far preferable to commercial broadband. The FCC seems determined to reduce choice and voice in broadcast programming, it is essential to American democracy to have an opportunities to learn more of world affairs from objective sources and in more depth than sound bites. Finally, while I rarely watch some of PBS staples like Antique Road Show and various nature programs, I am always happy to tune into a British comedy or Masterpiece Theater on the rare occasion that I find myself "surfing" for something to watch. There is never anything that I want to spend my precious time with on commercial television. Please keep this valuable source of information and entertainment free and available. Anne Stern

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:25 PM	Mary : I have been a member of our local PBS station for many, many years. My monthly viewers guide sits right by my TV, although I already know my favorites. If I can't see the program I record it, especially Foreign Exchange which comes on too early on Sunday morning. NPR is my radio station during the day and PBS my TV at night.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:24 PM	Alma Ring : I was appalled at the N.Y.Times falling for the the propaganda of the ultra conservatives who are trying to eradicate the Times as well as public broadcasting. PBS is the only intelligence left on TV and radio, due to the dumbing down of our population and the lowering of educational standards. The major broadcasting companies are owned by three or four business conglomerates who are trying to control all information as well as entertainment, and through cable charge us for the opportunity of watching such awful programs as" survival". PBS is free to all who can afford a TV or radio. Where else can we watch a symphony, see a good play or classic, or learn something about science, gardening, cooking, and keep up with the latest world news. There is no other broadcast where we can hear unbiased commentary except the Lehrer report and we would be lost without Bill Moyers. For example, tonight there is a debate between the Democratic candidates, which we will not be able to see as we do not have that kind of cable. At least on the Lehrer report we will gain some knowledge of what the candidates say. In this election year, isn't it important to learn as much as possible about the issues? The public deserves more than just "sound bites" from people who just read the notes in front of them with no unbiased analysis. And then we should think about the programs for children that help them learn to read and think. We will need them in the future as responsible citizens. Let us ask ourselves where is our democracy heading?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:20 PM	Ray and Alice Cowles : We do not have ,or want ,cable TV.Except for local news,The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is our trusted source of balanced news.Impossible to exist without it.We also count on the various PBS programs.Can not stand the inane ads on the networks.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:18 PM	M. Olson : Speaking as a regular Canadian viewer of PBS and listener to NPR, I can only urge Americans to cling dearly to whatever is left of their public networks, after all the budget cuts of recent years. Here in Canada, CBC television long ago sold out to ratings drives and commercial considerations, even though the Corporation receives approximately one billion of its 1.3 billion dollar budget from the taxpayer. CBC radio, long a bastion of informed and thoughtful journalism has lately

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:16 PM	Lee from Bay Area, California : How dare they attack PBS programming! It's the only real source of gathering true information, such as, Jim Lehrer News Hour, BBC World News, Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose, NOW, Frontline, etc. Is that article fit the bill "All the News that's Fit to be Printed?" Additionally, non-news programs are for the not dumbed-down audience that includes: Masterpiece Theater; BBC Mystery Nights; BBC Comedies; Nature, Nova; etc. Commercial TV has certainly degraded in the past 30 years or so. and rarely offers any programs that are worth watching for the content. One of the major exceptions, recently, was West Wing, but I guess that the topics got too close to home and was therefore removed. I feel that PBS programming MUST continue to be supported by both Federal monies as well as viewers monies.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:15 PM	Jack Chico : How essential is PBS? I have become so spoiled over the years by the quality and fairness and sheer pleasure (and the lack of interruptions) of Jim Lehrer's News Hour that I could never bring myself to go back to the old standard network evening news programs. Ditto my wife and a great many friends. Thanks PBS,

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:15 PM	Cindy : PBS and NPR programming is the practically the only fair and relevant broadcasting available nowadays. The news programs, in particular, are not only timely, not sensationalized, actually world news instead of Hollywood gossip, and present a fair syopsis of both sides. I think Bush and his cronies should give the 12 billion a month to public broadcasting instead of the war in Iraq!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:13 PM	Camille : Without PBS, television would be unbearable. I have cable service but I still find myself turning to PBS again and again, for news, for information without hype, for an in depth approach to issues. The news and programming is not slanted, it's just factual - and some people still cannot handle the truth. Bill Moyers is incomparable, brilliant, a national treasure. The whole team on the Newshour is great as are Shields and Brooks. The theatre productions, etc. are a rare find and Charlie Rose is a staple in our household. I discovered Pavarotti because of PBS. The childrens programs are the best around and an absolute necessity given the alternatives.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:11 PM	A Parmalee : PBS Newshour is the only reliable, intelligent news reporting on TV - do not take it away.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:11 PM	Joel H Fenchel : I too read the NYTimes article questioning the ongoing need for public television and want to add my voice to those who disagree with the Times article. In many ways, public television provides what the networks and cable do not, but especially in public affairs and most especially in The News Hour. There is simply NO competition for that broadcast. In fact, only the Times itself is any competition for The News Hour in substantive dissemination of objective and in depth coverage of the news. Please know how valuable I find that broadcast. Thank you.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:11 PM	Thomas Saylor : Both my wife and myself find the NewsHour as the ONE news program, where issues can be discussed in a balanced and RATIONAL manner and inform the public in an adult way. All the commercial stations, standard and cable, provide 60 sound bites, not information. Other PBS programs providing interesting and informative slants are Bill Moyers Journal, NOW, and Frontline. One commercial station compares with these: 60Minutes. For sheer news we also appreciate the half-hour broadcasts from the BBC. Thank you!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:08 PM	Valerie : It is too bad that PBS could not afford "Planet Earth." Discovery Channel is one of the specialized channels in which PBS's viewers, had they seen "Planet Earth," might have become interested. And ideally that is the purpose of PBS, not only to put the news into perspective, but to awaken its viewer's interest in subjects that on their own they might not seek. Of course, there are sites and cable stations that specialize on travel and nature programs and arts and in-depth politics in more detail than PBS. PBS, however, could expose its viewers not only to programs like the unbiased Frontline or the NewsHour's objective overview of national and world events, arts, ethical and social issues, but also to a sampling of the best the world has to offer. And this is priceless: a civilized nation ought to see to it that there is a public station able to afford the programs that might develop its citizens' general culture and sensibilities and, to use one of PBS's fund-raising catch phrases, expand their minds. It would contribute toward of a nation of more enlightened citizens.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:07 PM	B Dickinson : Good news/informational programs are getting harder to find. I canceled my cable subscription and only miss The Daily Show. Now programs such as the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, NOW with David Brancaccio and especially Bill Moyers' Journal are all that I look forward to as give me US news. The rest is find on the internet.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:07 PM	Lewellyn : PBS consistently offers the best programming on Tee Vee and WGBH's Frontline in IMHO the most trusted name in television. Charles McGrath of the NY Times, on the other hand, is expendable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:06 PM	Frances Bundtzen : I could not disagree more with the New York Times article! I think the public money that goes into PBS is the best dollar our government spends. I wish more of my tax money could be spent on PBS, not less! PBS is my television world. I listen to Public Radio all day while I work, but my nightly TV viewing is PBS. The News Hour, Nova, Frontline, American Experience, the Friday night lineup of Bill Moyers, Now, Washington Week, the McLaughlin Group, and To the Contrary are food for my mind that help me to see all sides of issues and help me to make decisions about how to cast my vote and live my life. The Britcoms, Masterpiece, Saturday craft programs, and music programs are food for my soul. If PBS went away, my world would shrink significantly. It is anything but irrelevent to me.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:05 PM	Carole Cramer : So: PBS is the most trusted institution in the U.S. and it's irrelevant? During these last seven years, PBS has been our personal most trusted source for news. It's not our only news source. We read the NYT and foreign press regularly. But for daily, dependable, in-depth news, we turn to PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:02 PM	Sharon Clancy : The New York Times article published Sunday, February 17, demonstrates such a snobbish tone it really raises the hair on the back of my neck. I am a member of both North Dakota Public Radio and Prairie Public Television. I do not have cable or a disk. I depend on both for news, news analysis and entertainment. I depend on both to offer indepth balanced reporting. I hate to plan other activities for Friday night because I don't want to miss the news line-up of the News Hour, Washington Week in Review, Now and Expos`e. Our programing has Bill Moyer's on Sunday at 5:00 which I am either watching or taping this program. Public broadcasting has suffered these past eight years under the Bush leadership but that doesn't mean that we are less dependent upon what is being presented and hope for a new day beginning January of 2009.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:00 PM	Vincent Payne : Congress and the Bush Administration have allowed the major media giants, such as Times etc. to get too big and powerfull. They have way too much influence on war issues and who is elected to Congress and the president. Thank God we have alternative media like PBS and Democracy Now to see the "other" side of issues.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:56 PM	Sylvia Dowst : Upon learning of the New York Times article, I was stunned. I find it incredible that anyone of any intelligence could possibly believe that PBS News Hour is not relevant! I very rarely miss watching it night after night, and Upon learning of the New York Times article regarding whether or not the News Hour is still relevant, I was stunned. How could anyone of any intelligence ever doubt the integrity and crucial importance of Jim Lehrer's News Hour? I recently wrote a letter to Jim Lehrer to express my appreciation and gratitude, saying that "by listening to the News Hour, I can get as close to the truth about what is going on in this ever growing troubling world, as it is possible to get." My husband and I rarely miss watching this program, and feel that it is journalism at its very best. I truly would be more concerned than ever about the future of this country, were it not for this reporting I can trust to get to the bottom of crucial issues, giving fair representation to all sides, being as fair as it is humanly possible to be. I shudder to think of TV without this reliable, high quality, reporting that I know I can count on. For me, if I watch nothing else, watching the Lehrer News Hour is my number one priority. For this country to survive, we've got to have reporting of this calibre. I feel that Jim Lehrer is one of this country's finest heroes.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:53 PM	Marilyn : Add my name to your chorus of ardent supporters! Only recently, I signed up for cable TV, because of the upcoming crucial election. But forget "THE PUNDITS"!! Not one holds a candle to Jim Lehrer and the News Hour. Bill Moyers is superb, and where would we go for the honest account of national/world affairs, and entertainment, without PBS???? Cable is only worth its government coverage via the CSPANS, in my opinion. I have supported public radio and television forever..don't close down our reliable sources of information.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:53 PM	C. Bowlen : What you cover/broadcast depends on whether: a) you're trying to make a profit, or b) trying to say what needs to be said/show what needs to be shown. Both are, of course, subjective calls, but one always panders and the other always informs. Not much of a choice as far as I"m concerned.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:47 PM	Mike H. : With 5000+ messages already in response to the Times, I have little to add to the sentiments expressed -- except my agreement. My wife and I watch the Lehrer program every night. It is not simply the best news program. It is the best that TV can offer a democratic society -- balance, insight, expertise, relevance, clarity. We've supported PBS financially over many years. We have a set of coffee cups to document such support. :) I watch other networks only to find out how news is being spun by supposedly neutral parties. There is simply no comparison. I wish I had a subscription to the Times -- so I could cancel it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:46 PM	25 year veteran of The News Hour : NPR, PBS, Jim Lehrer and Co. are vital. The last places in America to hear thoughtful and intelligent ideas.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:45 PM	Joan Wilson : PBS is more necessary today than ever before with the nonsense news of cable and the major networks. We turn to the Newshour every evening to get real news and watch PBS more than any other network as we've been doing for over thirty years. We watch Frontline, NOW, Bill Moyers' Journal, Masterpiece and much more. When we travel and find the hotel we're staying at doesn't carry PBS, we have nothing to watch.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:44 PM	Seemita Chakrabarti : PBS and NPR are our daily news source. They are only source where you can get some in depth news. The news really tries to explain complex issues with time for ordinary people. There is no program available like NOVA and nature in any other commercial TV. It will be a great loss not to have PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:43 PM	Roy Wagner : As a Democrat, I must say what The Times did was shameful. Period.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:42 PM	nathan lavenda : The programs on pbs are the best on tv.Shows such as the newshour with Jim Leher, masterpeice theatre, frontline, mystery, the music, the discussions, the interviews with Charlie Rose, are what makes tv worthwhile with me. The other channels just can't compare. we just cannot allow pbs to be cancelled.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:42 PM	Lillie Anderson : I subscribe to the limited basic cable programs offered in my area. The only reason I have television at all is because of the two PBS channels. There is nothing else worthwhile watching on TV! I depend on The NewsHour, in addition to the local newspaper and papers online, for news, and I enjoy Washington Week, Bill Moyers, and Masterpiece, as well as American Experience, American Masters and the specials. Do we need PBS? Absolutely! That's a no-brainer asked only by those with little or no brains.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:39 PM	Davidena : I cannot imagine not having PBS and its programming. The network and cable channels do not have the quality of programs that I associate with PBS. I would be lost without my evening news with Jim Lehrer and seeing Nature and Nova not to mention Frontline and Bill Moyer, etc. There is nothing like these programs on commercial TV. I would be in favor of much greater support for PBS from the government

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:39 PM	PC Swaim : I would like to add my appreciation for PBS and the News Hour; I find both highly relevant. I, too, am pleased to see Bill Moyers back weekly. My mother (Mrs. Lee Cummings) does not have online access and wishes that I include her approval for the above comments.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:39 PM	Pam Solomos : A more apposite question: As we have PBS, is any other form of news media now necessary?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:39 PM	Sue : It is ironic that the same week this article ran, The Times also had an article about Susan Jacoby entitled "Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?" Interestingly enough, Jacoby was also featured on Bill Moyers Journal. How relevant! PBS is one antidote for an epidemic of ignorance highlighted in Jacoby's thesis.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:38 PM	Jim Hussey : "The News Hour" is the only relavant news program worth watching on TV, and the journalists are of the highest quality. My dollars go to PBS for that program alone, and it is well worth the investment.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:37 PM	Paula Swaim : I would like to add my appreciation for PBS and for the News Hour. Both are highly relevant. I, too, am pleased to see Bill Moyers back weekly. My mother (Mrs. Lee Cummings) does not have online access and wishes that I add that her sentiments match the above.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:35 PM	Jay : I stopped watching the Newshour for the most part and stopped turning to the national network news as well. I don't have cable or sat-TV so I am basically relying on the internet for most of my media. I think that this election over the last year really identified the fundamental problem with politics and the media. Would Ron Paul have had more national response if the national news promoted him as a contender, and not a dark-horse? I think it self-fullfilling for the media. They say he is a dark horse, and so he is a dark horse. George Stephanopolus said that Ron Paul wasn't going to happen to Ron Paul's face during an interview, and then it didn't happen. So I am finished with the election and my country. Someone said that Hillary was our next President and that there was nothing the voters could do to stop it. I am beginning to see that there is little difference between the 3 candidates left. I don't want any of them, and the media decided the one I wanted wasn't goping to be in contention, and they made it happen. I still respect the goal of the Newshour, but felt they too, fell victim to politics. I was electing an idea, and that idea needed to be sold to the American public. Unfortunately the only selling being done by the media was that Ron Paul was a loser in the polls. His ideas, which are separate from the man, don't get much sunshine. I think the only change that will be made this November, is the change that clinks in the bottom of the tin cups, the handout society, and you know how good living is for the cupholders. The closer to the government, the more money you get. The rich will get richer, the middle class will evaporate, and inflation will cripple the bottom 9/10ths of the population.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:34 PM	Helen Okobokekeimei : PBS is better than commerical television. Everybody show be watching PBS everyday. PBS is better than NBC, FOX, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, the local news, and CBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:33 PM	ali : i can't imagine not having PBS. as a naturalized citizen, catching up with various aspects of our history in programs that cover the --breadth and depth-- of issues that other-wise are not given due time in other media, PBS is truly educational for the entire family.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:33 PM	Rodriguez : I love the PBS TV shows and think they perform a much-needed public service. Moyers' Journal, Frontline, Tavis Smiley, Nightly Business Report, Washington Week, Nova, This Week in California, Charley Rose, and the Lehrer News Hour develop a better informed public. Though I think BBC TV news is "better" and oriented more internationally than Mr. Lehrer's differently-formatted news show, I still try to watch his show. The interviews lasting several, UNINTERRUPTED minutes do inform, but it seems some of its journalists reveal ideological slants -- Ms. Warner, e.g., in her line and tone of questioning. Even in her spy satellite segment that was lauded by a commenter in this thread, the more "pro-defense" side was allowed to have the first and last word on the "debate." Still, the BBC model had weaknesses revealed during the Hutton Inquiry, and the death of weapons expert David Kelly. I do appreciate that Lehrer makes transcripts and video streams readily available. Former U.S. Marine Lehrer never did replace his former liberal-leaning co-host, Robert McNeil, and the show's objectivity and balance apparently lacks because of it; this show might benefit by Mr. Lehrer serving in a moderator-only role of former Newshour co-host, Gwen Ifill, whose more neutral and sometimes incisive comments are matched only by her ebullience, warmth, and sheer delightfulness. The Liberty Media-owned Lehrer show starts and ends with a long lineup of oil, defense, and finance sector corporation sponsors, advertised before and after the show, and is a free market show, with some of the foibles attached to that model. And perhaps economics is why the show lost Mr. McNeil and the stellar supreme court analyses by Linda Greenhouse. I do think PBS badly needs much more government-public funding and different content-vetting, to at least defeat the question of too much corporation sway. As in the Israeli-Palestinian debate, we won't hear of threats to cut broadcast funding from both sides of news issues. Or the Secretary of Defense phoning the head of PBS' parent company, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, to pressure him to have content that was more pro-Administration and pro-war. The Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, in a six month study in 2006 counted PBS' guests and news sources as being 5 to 1 in favor of keeping our troops in Iraq, even after this became the view of minority (not that the N.Y. Times is as pure as the driven snow on this). Thanks for reading this. Now, take a glance at the top of the website - this public service is brought to you by giants in oil, insurance, and telecommunication. Thank God for C-SPAN.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:29 PM	Dan : I cannot believe we are still having this discussion... After all the Newshour programing, the Frontline and other detail journalist contribution, after the examples that have been set with the return of Bill Moyer and the explusion of the CPB president (aka the idiot) I think it is clear that PBS is an institution that needs to be maintained, nurtured, expanded, invested into and trusted as the unbiased voice of the people... Lets stop the nonsense and concentrate on fixing our country...

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:27 PM	mocha : The News Hour on PBS consistently provides thoughtful, expert, in-depth and conflicting points of view on issues critical to the well-being of our communities and society. There is no comparison to the sometimes superficial and often slanted reporting that is typical of NYT and other journals. I read (and appreciate) them for their arguments, reports and "breaking news," but I watch the News Hour in order to be introduced to a wide range of thoughtful, rational, fair and reflective discussion. It is indispensable!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:25 PM	jeanie : The NY times is way off base. PBS is refreshing in today's news.It is open and unbiased. I watch it all the time. Long live PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:19 PM	Carry : The only good news show on broadcast television is Bill Moyers Journal. While I don't agree with Mr. Moyer's general political slant, he is the only journalist I actually have any respect for. Although I think I know his position on things, he seems to be dedicated to exposing the truth regardless of his personal position -- he is a professional. He actually uses his show to inform people and to examine questions that everyone else sweeps under the carpet. As for the News Hour, it may be ok by comparison to what is spewed out by the commercial networks, and it may win on style, but as for substance it isn't much better. While it is true that "news" on the commercial networks is watered down pablum, and somewhat biased towards the left (except for Fox which is thinly veiled Republican Party propaganda) that doesn't make the News Hour the shining beacon it is being described as here. The News Hour is dedicated to preservation of the status quo. The News Hour did no better than any of the rest in asking questions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, or the passage of the so-called "patriot" act or any of the rest of the dismantling of the Constitution. The coverage of the current presidential campaign has been little better than anywhere else. Just as on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc., We have been told who the "major" (i.e. establishment) candidates are and then they are the only ones given any significant coverage. The miniscule differences between their positions is then treated as enormous while candidates with truly different ideas are excluded. The justification being that there isn't enough time to spend on candidates who "can't win". I guess that explains why so much time was spent on Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thomson to the exclusion of certain other Republicans and Democrats. And we certainly will never hear any mention of ideas of third party candidates. Rather than coverage of issues, we get interviews with focus groups, and never ending horse-race coverage, with the viewers intelligence further insulted as opinion referred to as "analysis". Kawmi Holman is the best actual reporter and yet we see others much more often. Interviews are often simply opportunities for those in power to repeat their daily talking points. The more powerfull the person being interviewed the more sycophantic the nature of the questions. Government officials are never called on blatant lies, or absolutely objectively demonstrable factual mistakes. As one example, the current secratary of state said in one interview that the continental U.S. had not been attacked in over 200 years. I think the burning of the capitol by the British during the war of 1812 counts as an attack. And although Paul Solman generally does a decent job, his piece on inflation and the CPI (Feb. 20) made absolutely no attempt to explain the root cause of inflation -- the Federal Reserve's non-stop "printing" of "money". The News hour may be better than the rest, but that just isn't saying very much.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:19 PM	Richard E. Savoy : It's hard to deduce the basis for the Times' question, unless it was intended to have a heuristic effect. The simple answer is that PBS and cousin NPR are relevant because it is unthinkable to conceive of their not being so. PBS and NRP are in some ways similar to the fundamental forces that govern the physical world. While we acknowledge that gravity and eletromagnetism play a dispositve role in how our world and indeed the universe functions, we certainly do not fixate ourselves on them from microsecond to microsecond, but we could not imagine our world's getting on without them, and indeed it would not. PBS and NPR quite purposefully undertake to inquire, entertain, provoke, annoy, stimulate, shame, inform and motivate and in so doing they ennoble us. In the simplest terms, their work comes to asking, again and again, "Who are we, and what made us this way?" Maybe we are at times agitated because we don't like such questions and we are made even more suspicious because the questions don't come from someone interested not in getting answers but in selling us something we neither want nor need. That at least we could understand. The fact that there are as many answers to those questions as their are people asked is alone justification for PBS' and NPR's asking them, again and again. Who will ask them if not PBS or NPR? Someday, maybe 1,000 centuries from now, voyagers from a distant star will stop by earth to learn whether sentient, decent creatures might once have dwelt upon it. They will to some degree be interested in discovering not only how rapacious we were, how well we made war on each other, how we venerated air-headed, so-called celebrities, how we exulted in acquiring wealth and oppressing those who hadn't, and how efficaciously we'd managed to consume in 200 years what the planet had stored up over 200 million. They'll want to know how introspective we were, how able we were to distinguish subject and object, what degrees of compassion did we exhibit, how willing were we to make great personal sacrifices for the benefit of others, did we acknowledge the existence of anything greater than oursleves and if so how reverent of it were we. These strange visitors will have but use their advanced technology to retrieve bits and fragments from PBS and NPR tapes and recordings to enable them to anwer, when they return to their world, the questions that will be put to them. Who were the beings on the third planet from that distant sun? What were they like? Did they judge each other on the content of their character [where did we hear that before?] How did they disappear? Should the heavens mourn their passing? Who were they and what made them that way?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:19 PM	Carol E. MacDonald : We watch all the news--network, CNN, and PBS. PBS (Jim Lehrer) is by far the most informative and least biased; both sides of every issue are presented in virtually every case. Other great PBS presentations are "Bill Moyers' Journal", "Nova", "Nature", and "Antiques Road Show", to name a few. Ocassionally we catch great music on PBS--from folk to rock to classical. PLEASE DON'T TAKE AWAY OUR PBS! It is the best that television has to offer!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:19 PM	Carry : The only good news show on broadcast television is Bill Moyers Journal. While I don't agree with Mr. Moyer's general political slant, he is the only journalist I actually have any respect for. Although I think I know his position on things, he seems to be dedicated to exposing the truth regardless of his personal position -- he is a professional. He actually uses his show to inform people and to examine questions that everyone else sweeps under the carpet. As for the News Hour, it may be ok by comparison to what is spewed out by the commercial networks, and it may win on style, but as for substance it isn't much better. While it is true that "news" on the commercial networks is watered down pablum, and somewhat biased towards the left (except for Fox which is thinly veiled Republican Party propaganda) that doesn't make the News Hour the shining beacon it is being described as here. The News Hour is dedicated to preservation of the status quo. The News Hour did no better than any of the rest in asking questions in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, or the passage of the so-called "patriot" act or any of the rest of the dismantling of the Constitution. The coverage of the current presidential campaign has been little better than anywhere else. Just as on ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, etc., We have been told who the "major" (i.e. establishment) candidates are and then they are the only ones given any significant coverage. The miniscule differences between their positions is then treated as enormous while candidates with truly different ideas are excluded. The justification being that there isn't enough time to spend on candidates who "can't win". I guess that explains why so much time was spent on Rudy Guiliani and Fred Thomson to the exclusion of certain other Republicans and Democrats. And we certainly will never hear any mention of ideas of third party candidates. Rather than coverage of issues, we get interviews with focus groups, and never ending horse-race coverage, with the viewers intelligence further insulted as opinion referred to as "analysis". Kawmi Holman is the best actual reporter and yet we see others much more often. Interviews are often simply opportunities for those in power to repeat their daily talking points. The more powerfull the person being interviewed the more sycophantic the nature of the questions. Government officials are never called on blatant lies, or absolutely objectively demonstrable factual mistakes. As one example, the current secratary of state said in one interview that the continental U.S. had not been attacked in over 200 years. I think the burning of the capitol by the British during the war of 1812 counts as an attack. And although Paul Solman generally does a decent job, his piece on inflation and the CPI (Feb. 20) made absolutely no attempt to explain the root cause of inflation -- the Federal Reserve's non-stop "printing" of "money". The News hour may be better than the rest, but that just isn't saying very much.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:19 PM	Maria Fabiola Ortiz-Mays : The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: AN ABSOLUTE ESSENTIAL!!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:19 PM	Richard E. Savoy : It's hard to deduce the basis for the Times' question, unless it was intended to have a heuristic effect. The simple answer is that PBS and cousin NPR are relevant because it is unthinkable to conceive of their not being so. PBS and NRP are in some ways similar to the fundamental forces that govern the physical world. While we acknowledge that gravity and eletromagnetism play a dispositve role in how our world and indeed the universe functions, we certainly do not fixate ourselves on them from microsecond to microsecond, but we could not imagine our world's getting on without them, and indeed it would not. PBS and NPR quite purposefully undertake to inquire, entertain, provoke, annoy, stimulate, shame, inform and motivate and in so doing they ennoble us. In the simplest terms, their work comes to asking, again and again, "Who are we, and what made us this way?" Maybe we are at times agitated because we don't like such questions and we are made even more suspicious because the questions don't come from someone interested not in getting answers but in selling us something we neither want nor need. That at least we could understand. The fact that there are as many answers to those questions as their are people asked is alone justification for PBS' and NPR's asking them, again and again. Who will ask them if not PBS or NPR? Someday, maybe 1,000 centuries from now, voyagers from a distant star will stop by earth to learn whether sentient creatures might once have dwelt upon it. They will to some degree be interested in discovering not only how rapacious we were, how well we made war on each other, how we venerated air-headed, so-called celebrities, how we exulted in acquiring wealth and oppressing those who hadn't, and how efficaciously we'd managed to consume in 200 years what the planet had stored up over 200 million. They'll want to know how introspective we were, how able we were to distinguish subject and object, what degrees of compassion did we exhibit, how willing were we to make great personal sacrifices for the benefit of others, did we acknowledge the existence of anything greater than oursleves and if so how reverent of it were we. These strange visitors will have but use their advanced technology to retrieve bits and fragments from PBS and NPR tapes and recordings to enable them to anwer, when they return to their world, the questions that will be put to them. Who were the beings on the third planet from that distant sun? What were they like? Did they judge each other on the content of their character [where did we hear that before?] How did they disappear? Should the heavens mourn their passing? Who were they and what made them that way?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:18 PM	Dave Peck : I feel that a healthy democracy depends on an educated and informed voting population. PBS and NPR are far more useful to our society than the regular for profit media. My wife and I record the News Hour and watch it together most nights. We watch very little TV and use an attic antenna. I listen to NPR many hours each week because my job involves driving. I doubt our nation would have gotten into this current difficult situation if more of our population regularly used the public media to stay informed. DHP

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:18 PM	Walker Wyatt : PBS, both TV and radio, are a very important part of our daily news updates. We watch Jim Lehrer regularly, and often many other of the evening programs, whether we are in AZ or MI at different times of the year. PBS is a last holdout of nearly advertising free programing. We are members of both TV and radio stations in Northern Michigan and will provide our support as best we can to keep you on the air.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:18 PM	Steve Larkin : I will agree with the NY Times that it isn't what it used to be, but that is (as the NYT admits)due mainly to the Republicans constantly trying to underfund it or soften it's impact. The answer is to return the funding level to the point where "enhanced underwriters" or "ads" are not required to maintain operations, and to return the CPB Board to the non-partisan quality that the original enabling legislation required, so that we can get a truely non-political, non-partisan view of what our elected officials are doing, both to us and for us.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:18 PM	C. Gary : I applaud the NewsHour. As a news junkie, I enjoy the flow of the program. Void of commercials, the NewsHour can not only give traditional length news packages, but then back it up with long form discussions -not the shouting matches common on cable news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:18 PM	buildandfly : I am so pleased to have Jim Lehrer (of central U.S. Wichita Kansas) and a diet of deeper handling of US and World concerns. Aside from a significant effort to obtain guests who are well-studied on various topics, they customarily give enough TIME to develop significant and complicated aspects. The fact that video IS NOT DOMINANT is significant, too. On other Nutwork Newz, there is NOTHING to indicate that what you see is NOT file footage--and you often are. Thank God for PBS, NPR, and the BBC--if access to them is denied, I have little doubt that thousands of volunteers will be available to continue the work--and if they deny us access to the now incredibly expensive airwaves....just have them try to to stop AM radio or shortwave--because I'll be there! (BTW, the BEST coverage of Katrina was 870 AM on WWL in New Orleans. It was far better than what was offered by the "beauties" on network TeeeVeee--and it provided very useful information to those seeking assistance. I guess I must say that the SELF-IMPORTANCE of COASTAL MEDIA is the hardest thing of all for this flatlander. NPR and PBS are far more likely to "get out of town" and well away from the customarily insular homogeneity. HOORAY AND THANKS FOR ALL THOSE INVOLVED AND THOSE WHO DONATE TO SUPPORT THEIR EFFORTS ! !

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:25 PM	Susan : The NewsHour is 30+ years old and is still the best news program going! Without PBS, I would not have a television set.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:22 PM	James Kerr : It is ludicrous to suggest that we no longer need PBS. It clearly comes from people that do not have the good taste or sense to appreciate quality programming. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the best quality news program around, and the only one I will watch. There is simply no substitute for their in-depth coverage of important stories as well as their interviews with news makers, and especially with people from opposite sides of issues.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:21 PM	Ruth : Even though I am concerned about corporate sponsors on PBS - I still wholeheartedly believe that the integrity of the "Newshour Team" allows the best source of objective information on TV. I believe quite the opposite about especially corporate owned or controlled newspapers today!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:19 PM	Douglas Coe : PBS provides us Americans a service that is not biased based on ownership. They give us the opportunity to think for ourselves. The service is uninterupted by commercials and the Newshour continually gives silence at the end of the program to honor our fallen Heroes in combat.I commend the Newshour for its continued support and insightful reporting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:16 PM	john catron and laurie archer : PBS is not only necessary, but is an essential part of life, particularly The NewsHour

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:16 PM	Peter Penry-Williams : I live in Melbourne Australia and watch the newshour on most days on SBS Australian Television.It is in invaluable aid in understanding what are the major issues and events going on in the USA which is essential for anyone who wishes to be informed about world affairs. The program is of a very high standard in comprehensive discussion of important issues with its clear focus on informing viewers.It is of a much higher standard than any public affairs programs in Australia where most programs are either superficial or based on the personality of the presenter. I assumed that there would be many programs like Newshour all over the U.S. but I have been informed that there is only one. Please can we recognise its importance and acknowledge the contribution it makes to public debate. Reporting of this type and the standard set by Jim Lehrer is quite excellent and very important

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:15 PM	Gloria and Roger Farrell : Can you imagine trying to figure our all this crap that is going on in the Bush Whitehouse without Jim Lehrer and the "NewsHour."

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:14 PM	Frank; : Keep up the good work. The PBS News Hour is by far the most relevant, unbiased TV reporting available to average citizens. It's loss for an informed public would be unconscionable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:13 PM	Ellen in DC : The NewsHour is the only television program (on any network or channel) that we plan our schedule around and try never to miss. If every American citizen watched this program, we would have a much better informed and involved electorate. Frontline, too, is invaluable, presenting in depth information that is available nowhere else.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:08 PM	David : I both watch PBS and Listen to NPR on a regular basis. I receive valuable information daily. Commercial radio is good for music and talk radio can be enteraining, but for real life actionable information, I depend on NPR and PBS. I watch the network news, but I find that the "News Hour with Jim Leher" more substantive and not just hype. As child, Sunday Nights were when our family watched TV together. We would watch "Mutual of Omaha's - Wild Kingdom" and then Disney, but now for my family the tradition is to watch "Nature." Wired Science is also a show my son and I both enjoy. In my opion PBS and NPR are like a good meal (Steak Dinner for me). It's not only enjoyable but it helps sustain you. Whereas, comercial TV and radio are like dessert. It's ok in moderation, but but you'd be just as well without it (if not better). I hope that PBS and NPR continue to be a choice and that they continue to provide fact based programing. Thanks for being the most relevent programing on the air these days.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:06 PM	Frances Harkins : I subscribe to the NYT 7 days a week. When I read that article, I was amazed and appalled. Clearly, listening to programs on the public radio stations is great. It keeps me sane on long trips. But, daily programs such as the Lehrer show are a staple for me. Jim Lehrer is my main television source news, though occasionally I also watch Katie Couric. I love NOW with Brancaccio and Moyers' new program as well, and occasionally watch the Week in Review, another fine show. I try to watch Charlie Rose daily. As I live in both Pittsburgh, PA. and Clearwater, Fl. I sign no long-term agreements with any cable concern. Instead, I use rabbit-ears. TV without PBS would be a desert indeed. In Clearwater I especially like the addition of the BBC news and Deutsche Welle which provide much more insight into both Europe and Asia than American television programs do. My German friends there and I usually watch it together over coffee and kuchen! Possibly, the NYT writer is simply used to the NY TV marketplace with its plethora of programming. In my life, I depend on PBS for its relevant investigative journalism. I have been appalled that it's been taken over by Republicans in a political grabfest, and gave high marks to Moyers when he quit in protest. Now he soldiers on with great valour -- fearless indeed, as our senators should have been before they authorized the Iraq War. In summary, the NYT article was an unnecessary injury to the reputation of a fine outfit. And what's wrong with Jane Austen anyway?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:04 PM	kamal : PBS is the only refuge we have from all the commercial, cookie-cutter lowest common denominator pleasing and titillating shows offered by rest of the so called main channels. If PBS was not there who is going to hold up the standards and keep the thinkers' interest alive? Not only the NewsHour but all the political news magazines, business news, investigative reporting, as well as dramas, dances and other entertainment shows which are far cry from run-of-the-mill entertainment shows provided by other channels. If I had to choose I would choose only PBS channel to run all the time.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:04 PM	edna : If PBS becomes extinct, I will be able to throw away my TV set.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:03 PM	v spencer : The public already has "Newsreaders" on every other channel, and as a concerned citizen I need an objective view of world events and politics. Our country's survival depends on education.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:03 PM	Maria Fabiola Ortiz-Mays : The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: AN ABSOLUTE ESSENTIAL!!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:02 PM	Miriam Null : What? PBS increasingly irrelevant? not for me! it is the only channel with reliably interesting and intelligent programs. I do not have cable; I am restricted to the large media which have become inane. without PBS I will have nothing whatever to look at on my TV. what world does the Times reporter live in? or what world do I? the world of the income-limited retiree, dependent on decent TV to get thru the day--or rather evening. In truth PBS offers nothing during the day, so I listen to NPR----sad! Miriam Null

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:01 PM	Mollie Hilty : I have supported PBS since my children, who are now in their thirties, were toddlers. They grew up with seseme street and Mr. Rogers neighborhood. I watch the new hour exclusively because it is the only news broadcast that I can trust. The Public Broadcasting Service is essential to all Americans.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:59 PM	Maria Fabiola Ortiz-Mays : The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: AN ABSOLUTE ESSENTIAL!!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:59 PM	Carol : If the powers that be take away PBS and NPR I will abandon both my tv and radio. They are the only channel/station worth listening to. Most of the drek out there is pandering to the lowest common denominator of our population. Fortunately, our public radio and tv stations still try to enhance our intelligence, not insult it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:59 PM	LoyalWatcher : I think the Times is suffering from envy in that people are watching more television and using the internet than are reading papers (look at the The Cincinnati Post). PBS gives you more than the newspaper ever can. It gives you intelligent commentary, shows to fix your home (the Ask This Old House hour is a godsend), the science channel, the history channel, the biography channel and more. In addition, you don't have to pay an outrageously and ever increasing monthly cable bill. It's all on one channel (or two if you can get Dayton and Cincinnati) and a very affordable price, you give what you can afford and what you get in return is priceless.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:59 PM	Maryann Perry : PBSISTHE LAST REFUGE OF INTELLIGENT,THOUGHTFUL & INSPIRING TV. IT IS THE ONLY CHANNEL I TRUST FOR NEWS AND INFORMATION THAT PEELS BACK THE LAYERS ON SUBJECT MATTER THAT SHOULD BE OF INTEREST TO US ALL. THE PURE JOY OF PRODUCTIONS LIKE MASTERPIECT THEATRE & MYSTERY HAVE NO PEERS. FRONTLINE,NATURE,THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE,NOVA ETC.,ETC. I FEEL THIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD LIKE NOTHING BETTER THAN TO PUNISH PBS FOR THE UNBIASED TRUTH THEY HAVE PRESENTED REGARDING MATTERS OF POLITICAL CONCERN. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK PBS. YOU ARE THE SHINING PURE LIGHT OF WHAT JOURNALISH SHOULD BE .

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:58 PM	Julia Madeson : While I appreciate the commentator's kudos for Public Radio, public television also fills the void for us 'working class stiffs' who cannot afford cable. It's good to know that the private sector has found PBS program so compelling that it is profiting from imitation. Even so, I don't believe that there are science programs as rich as NOVA on cable, programs that take viewers far under the sea and that open up astronomy in a big way with vivid narrative. American Masters covers people who interest me more that A & E Biography; Michael Tilson Thomas' orchestral programs offer insights, and Great Performances is simply that. Tavis Smiley conducts uniquely warm-hearted in-depth interviews that exceed his radio work, and no one need shrink from MacNeil Lehrer's extensive explorations and their inclusion of deceased soldier's touching photographs. Frontline and Bill Moyers regularly blow my mind, just when I need it most. The whole point of PBS viewers being able to laugh at Hyacinth Bucket on 'Keeping Up Appearances' is that people can be hilarious with their pretentions; But what can be wrong about continuing your education with NOVA, The War, African Amecians 2, and Nature? And if I hadn't had Masterpiece's artful Jane Austen to escape to on Super Bowl Sunday, I would have had one less opportunity to enjoy a night of 'free' television that reflects my genuine interests when they happen to differ from the roaring majority.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:56 PM	Jenny : The News Hour is the only regular, intelligent, relevant, unbiased news on TV, and PBS often the only channel worth watching. We take a newspaper, listen to NPR (another best), and get news online. But for real information, we watch News Hour. Couldn't be more important.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:53 PM	Constance Matusiak : A democracy does not exist without an informed electorate. The News Hour is a vital source of thorough,accurate, timely information to insure such a citizenship.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:52 PM	Marcia in Chicago : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is the ONLY broadcast news program I can stand to watch these days. All the others (ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Fox, etc), with the exception of BBC Worldnews which is on when I cannot watch TV, are all about being entertaining. The anchors laugh at everything or try to turn everything into a joke. They report everthing in sound bites and concentrate on sensational stories that have no real relevance to our lives. They also tend to be very biased in how stories are reported. When opposing voices are presented, the guests usually conduct what ends up being a shouting match, and no one's ideas are fully explored. In contrast, The News Hour runs stories on things that matter, like Supreme Court decisions, politics, and changes in foreign governments. Also, the News Hour format allows for serious and balanced discussion of the issues. Opposing voices are always presented and the experts they use are almost always polite enough not to interrupt each other, so you really get to hear their opinions. PBS also has programs like Bill Moyers' Journal. In my opinion, this is a MUST SEE for anyone who is a true patriot and really loves America. If PBS goes away, we will have given up the only reporting which attempts to be unbiased.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:51 PM	Craig R. : This is why I no longer read the Times. For objective reporting, I turn to PBS's News Hour, which I watch nightly. The Times attack on PBS is what I would expect from a paper that gave us pre-Iraq invasion stories by Judith Miller -- they're little more than a hardcopy version of Fox News. Their reputation for objectivity is not just overrated, but baseless, and perhaps dangerously so as many people erroneously equate a Times story with the truth. Thank God that Americans have a few remaining reliable sources such as PBS and C-Span when we need the facts.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:51 PM	L. Holven : PBS is the only sane and sensible news on all of TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:47 PM	Joan Dushinske : I have faithfully watched Lehrer's news hour, and preiously McNeil and Lehrer for 18 years in South Texas, (Rockport) I watch the local news stations but always tune in for a more comprehensive report from PBS. I enjoy the pro's and cons on the issues and especially like friday night with Brooks and Shields. I like the objectivity that PBS is noted for, contrary to what others perceive.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:47 PM	concerned canadian : Re: NY Times article on PBS: Sorry, I should not have been so critical of the Times.....now that I've read the article in full, where it was, in part, defending PBS in so far as the network's need for more money from Washington. It's no surprise that the Bush Admin. has cut funding to public broadcasting....typically Republican!Wouldn't want to educate the public too much now, would we?! Besides, that leaves more money for the war in Iraq. Its a pathetic bunch on Capitol Hill. Let's hope that Obama wins in November and increases spending for public television. Bonne chance! CC

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:46 PM	Fiona O'Connell : (My comment was, I think, erased) I cannot redo it, or finish it so I will state in a few added words: PBS, The Newshour, Bill Moyers are my TV home. Most of commercial TV cannot be described in words I's care to use here. It is unpleasantly odorous and not worthy of bing watched by anyone who values the use of his/her time.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:46 PM	David Hendrickson : Save PBS, but constant awareness of change and new and challenging programming badly needed, beginnning with full court pres upon Congres for more funding. PBS must become as much a success as NPR.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:42 PM	Paul Clarke : The Newshour with Jim Lehrer and company is the only news broadcast in the U.S. worth watching. Returning to the U.S. after 20+ years away, I find standard network news, the "news you can use" and entertainment approach appallingly uninformative. No wonder Americans know so little about the rest of the world. There should be no more debate about the use and value of PBS: it provides a service not found elsewhere, and public funding must continue -- even at an increased level.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:42 PM	Jan Rule : You are the best kept secret in the world. I know that the News Hour has been around for a long time. I do not understand low viewer volume. If we want to think about what is going on in the news , watch the News Hour. It is the only source for this exercise of thinking. You will probably remain a secret because we do not want to think but be entertained or empty headed. God forbid! keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:40 PM	Fiona O'Connell : Life, as each one of knows, is a transitory affair punstuated by by ups, downs, ins, outs, joys, sufferings, and essential delights. Most of us look and hope for as much truth in all of this as we can find and hold on to. We get this necessity in the natural world, the people we love and trust, and in part in seeing a representation of our world on TV, fairly and skillfully portrayed with a discerning eye for the truth of the world's political news by Jim Lehrer's Newshour and Bill Moyers, are as close as TV viewers get to truth in news reporting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:40 PM	Tenngrandma : The NY Times has become irrelevent with its penchant to hold up important news stories until elections are safely over (see illegal wiretapping story held up until after the 2004 "election"), or primaries are decided (their latest "tell-all" story about McCain) before it prints damaging articles. It's humorous that they would call PBS news irrelevent. Quite the contrary - PBS is the ONLY broadcast news I have any faith in, mainly because it is viewer owned, not corporate owned, and I can rely on the news delivered on a daily basis. Jim Lehrer and Bill Moyers are professional and let us see how journalists used to conduct themselves, in a truly honest and open format. Irrelevent? Not by a long shot - we are in dire need of PBS news outlets... I just wish we had more news sources that could be counted on for facts - not lies and innuendo!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:39 PM	Mary Randazzo : PBS is incredibly essential, from the wonderful news programs, Nightly News Hour, Bill Moyers & Frontline, my favorites to Masterpiece Theatre. PBS is the only source left that doesn't inundate with commericials and provides a well-rounded view of current events. Does the New York Times really want to leave us with the O'Reillys, Hannitys, Abrams & Blitzers. We must have these thoughtful PBS programs to stimulate & provide information we wouldn't get from any of the networks or the internet in a million years.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:39 PM	Steve Ellis : To me, PBS television is the most rewarding viewing experience available. Most channels seem to be first and foremost outlets for commercials, the vast majority of which I find both intrusive and offensive. I am also repulsed by the prolification of sex and extreme violence. In contrast, PBS seems to be much more informative and balanced in its presentations. If I miss The News Hour, I feel somewhat deprived for that day. Well Done, PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:39 PM	B.U.B.. Sarma : I strongly feel that it is very relevant to have as much as 'an independent' source of news. News Hour is much more informative and 'objective'. PBS has 'weathered' lots of 'troubles' of board chairman etc. Please, let us all try for an independent TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:38 PM	Frank J. Weiss : You must be kidding to even ask such a question. The ONLY DECENT REPORTING of the news can only be found on THE NEWS HOUR. It's the only one we can trust.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:35 PM	Jim : In my opinion the PBS Newshour is the best news and commentary show on television. It is a welcome relief from the noise and irrelevence of much of cable news. There are no better reporters in the news business than those on the Newshour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:34 PM	James Reinhart : Commercial, cable, and satellite television broadcasts are cutural wastelands. If it wasn't for public televsion, I would toss my TV in the trash. I particularly enjoy the NewsHour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:33 PM	Ed Oshiro : KCTS TV (PBS) is the only station I watch. No other station provides information and stimulates ones brains as PBS does.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:30 PM	FitzAusTex : PBS is just amazing! Although I also follow the mainstream media (MSM), I regularly watch Newshour, NOW on PBS, Washington Week, Bill Moyers, Frontline, and Frontline/World as a reality check.I also love Nova, Austin City Limits, and American Experience, not to mention many other specials like Ken Burns' "The War". PBS is a calm in the storm of so much junk on commercial TV. I do have to admit though that it might be time to add some younger talent, as I think this might help with some of the 'PBS is musty' allegations.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:30 PM	Judith Brow : I disagree in large measure with the idea that Public Television is irrelevant and out done by for profit Television stations. Speaking for one who can afford only "basic cable", I feel that Public Television offerings stand up well when compared to the line up of network and cable shows I receive. I would like to see more Federal support given to PBS. I think they are doing the best with the money they receive, but they could do better with more resources. I have written to my Cogressmen in the past to support PBS and I am prepared to do so again.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:29 PM	concerned canadian : If it wasn't for PBS, we'd never know the truth about what's goingon in the world and in America! PBS is a hell of a lot more relevant than the New York Times could ever be. Don't get me wrong, I'm a liberal too! To the NY Times editor-in-chief....the poor story you published about PBS was unfit to print!!! I enjoy most of PBS' programs from "Frontline" (the best public affairs program ever, along with CBC's "the fifth estate") to Nature and Nova, and National Geographic, and Austin City Limits, and the American Experience. Nice for a Canadian to view the intelligent side of America through the lens of PBS. Look at the mindless crap on American, corporate owned, television, like ABC, NBS, CBS, CNN, and FOX. They are all about ratings and profits! The news is controlled and manipulated to suit their political and business agendas. When the U.S. invaded Iraq 5 years ago, these networks either fell asleep or contracted laryngitis. Thank you PBS....keep doing what you're doing...it's all good! I will continue to watch and support you. I will continue to "Be More"! Kindest regards, CC

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:29 PM	Maurice : Each time the News Hour host says "Thanks for watching and good night" I am moved to say "Thank you, too!" I rarely watch any other daily news program than the News Hour. Stuffy? What is stuffy about good reporting of the news?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:27 PM	Maggie Cross : I am sure that commercial media, which already has a stranglehold on news and delights in molding public opinion, would be thrilled if PBS and NPR would disappear. However, for those of us who like to hear factual information and competing opinions, PBS is our lifeline. The New York Times needs to get a grip; do they really think we trust THEIR version of the news?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:26 PM	Russ Martz : We enjoy the professionalism and integrity of the PBS reporting team.We are also concerned about each soldier that is killed in the Middle East but fifty thousand citizens die on our highways ever year and this is seldom if ever mentioned in any newcast.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:25 PM	dave d : I can't imagine life without the Newshour or other PBS programs. In particular, at a time when the U.S. is losing its edge in science, shows such as Nova and Wired Science are essential. Also, I was annoyed that the NYT article was so dismissive of Bill Moyers. His "Buying The War" program was a comprehensive accounting of the failure of the media (NYT included) to inform the public about the Iraq war. And let's not forget about Frontline. Its reports are outstanding. PBS should have more support not less.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:20 PM	BDJ : My husband and I have decided that paying for dish / cable tv is just not worth it. Therefore the only station we receive a free signal for in the north woods of Wisconsin is public televistion and we couldn't be happier. It has so greatly enriched our lives that we would go to great lengths to help retain it. When you see what is available on mainstream tv and how the news broadcasts there have lost all credibility (largely due to editorial control by owners with a certain political bias)you HAVE to be so thankful for the existence of Publlic Television and specifically the NEWS HOUR. If it loses funding then I believe the public will step up to retain the only sane distribution of information we have in this insane political environment. Thank you, thank you, thank you for the great programming you provide!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:20 PM	Paul : I can't imagine not having not just the news from PBS, but all of the other great programs. I support and hope PBS is always available as it is today.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:18 PM	joy n. beer : Yes, cable offers some fine programming, if you have the patience to look thru the listings to find them. I know where to look for the PBS listings and most times I can find something interesting and worthwhile to watch. One of my favorite programs is "Mystery", which was not even mentioned in the Times article. Also, my five-year-old grandaughter knows that she can go to "PBS Kids" at any time. Losing PBS would be like losing a good friend.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:17 PM	Rick : As far as the media companies as concerned, news is no longer "news", it's entertainment. It has to either make a profit and score ratings, or push the corporations goals and candidates. The result is the crap you see on the big three and the cable companies. We need PBS and the Newshour more than ever. It is the only news program that strives to help us understand the context of the days events. Jim Lehrer should get the Medal of Freedom!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:16 PM	Pamela Maher : The PBS NewsHour is the only news show that is not run by major corporations whose prime interest is their bottom line. We need an unbiased source of news and this is the only one that I have found. Perhaps more funding rather than less is the answer.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:16 PM	Douglas McFadden : The quality of pbs programs is indispensable. The News Hour each day if essential if we are to have balanced reporting and indepth coverage. pbs is a national treasure.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:16 PM	Paco : From the NYT article: Considering how much it costs to create new topnotch programming, the best solution to public television’s woes is the one that will probably never happen: more money, not less. So let's ensure that PBS does get MORE money. It is essential for the vitality of democracy in the US.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:16 PM	Elaine in Jersey : What was the NYT thinking? With all the problems in print journalism ala LA Times, good news everywhere is in danger. Watching Jim Lehrer & his colleagues is the only daily TV news event that I even consider. I listen to NPR, read the NYT headlines online daily, browse thru the Sunday NYT...but won't miss The News Hour for indepth coverage on important topics. Are there any better people in TV news than Gwen Ifill (this woman is a gem!)? Judy Woodruff? Ray Suarez? Shields and Brooks? Jeffrey Brown? And all the others who contribute to making this show top notch. I'm furious that cable has become junk showing--unless you pay more for premium channels and digital. Instead of watching less of PBS, I find myself watching more. Why doesn't the Times report on how awful programming has become on cable? Remember when A&E was really "Arts" and "Entertainment"? Remember when Bravo really did programming? I'd consider giving up cable but for reception.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:13 PM	Sandra and Ron Mellow : Yes! PBS is still a necessary beacon of information, entertainment and news in a commercial TV world filled with absolute dreck. A famous philosopher once observed: "No one ever went broke underestimating the tastes of Americans". It is still true today as it applies to commercial TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:08 PM	Betsy : The question should be - to produce an informed public, are the commercial and cable news programs necessary. And beyond the news, what is so great about the entertainment offerings on commercial and cable TV. Jim Lehrer has so many educated, different points of view and he encourages converstation not warfare. I also am a BIG fan of Charlie Rose but I don't understand why he doesn't merit a better time slot than midnight?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:07 PM	fathertime : as a senile senior citizen ashamed of how my generation has allowed the dramatic decline of:public education standards, commercial TV entertainment content, and disgusting skills of local news readers (not reporters); PBS is the only TV alternative available to attempt to stay reasonably well informed in a non-Cable residence

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:05 PM	Lawrence Roycroft : I wish to assure that I feel that several programs on PBS are extremely relevant to me. I watch KCTS and find that Charlie Rose, News Hour, Now, Bill Moyer's Journal, Washington Week and Frontline are consistently in our living room. We arrange our Friday evenings around the PBS schedule. We also view KCTS Cooks and a few other programs. We would like that PBS provide more of this type programming, so that we would watch it more often.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:03 PM	Niel : It is unbelievable that this question should even be asked. If more Americans watched PBS and The Newshour in particular we will have an altogether different political situation at present. Unbiased information is crucial to making important and critical decisions.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:01 PM	Navneeth Mandavilli : I cannot really argue with the content of the Times article; I probably agree with it. NPR great, PBS OK. Nevertheless, if given choice to retain just one channel of all that is available on television, I would choose PBS without a second thought.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:00 PM	Kitty & Jim : Thank goodness for Moyers, Brancaccio and MacNeil/Lehrer. Thank goodness for PBS which strives to bring access to real news to all, regardless of cable. Sure, it needs more money but don't all non-profits? The Times article was a great way to highlight the issue and stimulate interest. We all need to be shook up occasionally -- PBS is one of our few movers and shakers.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:57 PM	susan smith : PBS is a voice in the wilderness of Republican dominated Utah. Otherwise one is trapped with "truthiness" as expressed by Fox News and the LDS church. Donot allow PBS to be removed from the airwaves. It literally is the breath of reality. Give us more Jim Lehrer and Bill Moyer's please....professionals not screamers.....

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:54 PM	REILLY : With the consolidation and ownership of multiple TV and Radio stations by one company in major U.S. markets , the quality of network news has diminished greatly.A rush to judgment mentality has replace verify the facts before they are aired on national TV . The recent incident at Northern Illinois Univ. is a classic example: the actual number of fatalities changed 4 or 5 times on (network TV) , it was finally accurately reported 24 hours later. PBS TV and Radio are refreshing very accurate and reflects both sides of controversial news subjects. I watch and listen to PBS for 90% of my news information and I consider myself to be a news junkie . PBS forever !!!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:53 PM	Susan : I get my headlines from the internet, weather from local news and the Sunday news shows on the network, but for real news I watch the News Hour. The balanced views and real analysis are far more appealing than sound bites and sensationalism from cable and network news. The corporate ownership and bias of more and more cable and other news makes the News Hour essential to protecting free speech.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:52 PM	Patty : VIVA LA News hour with Jim Lehrer and all other related PBS news publications. PNS, the only media where one can get reliable, accurate and unbiased accounting of world events.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:51 PM	Terry Blankers : Beyond a doubt PBS is relevant and indeed necessary - a lone bastion of news and thoughtful insight standing in stark contrast to the infotainment on all the other networks. I think the more appropriate question to ask is whether the New York Times is relevant as they increasingly seem to be joining the ranks of the infotainment business.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:49 PM	Chris : I want to say "ditto" to the dozen or so comments I have just read. Having lived in Europe for 30 years (15 years ago), I cannot bear the commercial interruptions or stupid programs on other channels. Keep going PBS, we need you, we love you, we support you. Chris

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:44 PM	V V Wallace : Perhaps as a minority we PBS viewers could be protected, funded? I have a dish,sample all, but choose PBS almost exclusively.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:41 PM	Hduclos : Without the quality of public television we might as well unplug the set. As you pass the stations devoted to selling a product, or a cause, you come with enthusiasm to one that offers intelligent, timely and varied programs. News programs that do not duplicate the three big stations, but include a variety and depth you cannot find anywhere else. Masterpieces, literally in fiction and drama and music that are aimed at all ages. You never turn it on that you don't turn it off with new knowledge and information.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:36 PM	Michael DiGiorgio : Consider the source. Made by a paper that has been scandalized by false reporting and has had to let reporters go. The News Hour offers the most well rounded look at the world available to Americans.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:36 PM	George Taylor : Since I have PBS reporting for me, why do I need the New York Times?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:36 PM	Pat Lynne : I have been watching the News Hour since its inception, back when Robert McNeil teamed with a younger and longer-haired Jim Lehrer. There simply is not a better news program on television. I have hurried home to watch, learned to tape it when the schedule conflicted with my employment, visited it on the internet when the taping failed, and subscribed to the daily scheduling alert to make sure I at least catch the topics that I care most about. The world and technology may move on, but quality TV is hard to find.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:35 PM	Reta Olsen : Jim Lehrer's News Hour is the only evening news program that I think provides in-depth coverage of events in a balanced, non-partisan way. As far as I am concerned, it is m only choice - quality over quantity - and I'm grateful for it!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:32 PM	olbear : pbs provides excellent programming for all. no interupting commercials. PBS is THE BEST!!! thank you.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:28 PM	mary guido : I watch the PBS news hour. It the most informitive news on tv. Mary Guido

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:28 PM	Tom and Sandra Lekas : The purpose of our comments is to say that we are faithful watchers of the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. We feel that the News Hour is far and above any other news program. We are particularly addicted to Mark Shields and David Brooks' analysis during the Friday night program and try to plan our Friday evenings around their appearance.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:27 PM	Jim Bennett : I am happy to be cumulative in my comments about a great network. My wife and I routinely leave cocktail parties and depart meetings early in order to get home to watch Jim Leherer's "News Hour," which comes on at 7pm in Florida's West Coast. Not only is the staff articulate and evenly knowledgeable, but the guests don't scream at each other, and present balanced debate. Add to this the Florida this Week program which follows on Fridays - the best local news in the State - and the Perkins' Gulf Coast Journal, and we have consistently the best programming out there. Now that we have HD and access PBS that way, it would be pulling teeth to take us away from public television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:26 PM	Sara P. Howrey : PBS and NPR (The News Hour, Morning Edition, and All Things Considered) . . . the daily essentials for an exciting world view. Priceless.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:23 PM	Marylin Kattan : Local news is entertainment tonight with murder, mayhem and sports thrown in, MSNBC is a misogynist joke with CNN and Fox not any better. National news in depth is 30 seconds more on a one minute blurb and the Los Angeles Times has turned into a Hollywood shill. The News Hour is the only TV program that I watch regularly.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:21 PM	John : The News Hour is simply the best news available. I wonder what reaction the Times would have received if it asked the question is Fox necessary?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:21 PM	C.Fortt : I support PBS TV in general and The News Hour in particular for the amount of coverage it provides to a given news story,etc,etc,etc.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:20 PM	Jean Muirhead : I am a great fan of the News Hour, as well as many other shows on PBS, and it would be missed in my household if PBS were no longer available. I ONLY watch PBS and would not want to ever have to get my news from the uneducational fare available from private networks. I frequently recommend PBS shows to my students in my history courses and do not find that the History Channel offers much. Except for those who prefer to be entertained, rather than educated.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:20 PM	Rhena : The News Hour is the only news program my husband and I watch because the content is about presenting the news objectively. We dislike reality shows so PBS is very important to us.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:19 PM	young viewer : It was a NYT's Op-Ed columnist in her recent book who commented that "the evening news nowadays is often about such airy matters as diet, dermatology, plastic surgery...." The NewsHour provides an alternative that is, in my opinion, very necessary.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:15 PM	Helen Mudry : I watch the NewsHour every day, right after the National News. I watch it because it gives a discussion of the topics that we otherwise don't get easily, not even cable. I learn a lot just by watching that one hour! I look forward to it every single day! It's better than cable. It's the way news SHOULD be. Don't change it!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:13 PM	Fred : I have enjoyed watching PBS since 1966...if it weren't for the programs on PBS I would most definitely get rid of my TV...

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:12 PM	Liz : PBS is the one sane place left for television viewing. This network is educational, entertaining, & broadening. I watch Jim Lehrer's news broadcast which is calm, intelligent, and includes all points of view. The animal documentaries, Frontline, American experience, British comedies and mysteries are so enjoyed by myself and my companion. I hope we do not lose support for this excellent channel and programing. In the meantime I shall continue through my contributions to lend support to PBS and hope others do the same. Liz Great Falls, Montana

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:10 PM	Ruth Berman : Attacks on PBS come from money, stupidity, and tastelessness. Money can afford cable. Many viewers cannot. The assumption that everyone can is stupid. Cable stations do in many cases approach the quality of PBS, but they cannot reach it (or did not when I could afford cable), and it is tasteless to expect even those viewers who can afford cable to put up with less than PBS. PBS could be better with more funding, but viewers need PBS, not cable. (And not Public Radio, which is wonderful, but serves different needs.)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:07 PM	Kathy Juntunen : After reading several of the positive comments regarding PBS, I was tempted to just say "ditto" to all. However, I find I must join the chorus of all the pluses of PBS. My husband and I have watched the McNeil/Lehrer News Hour since its inception, when it was one half hour. We also watch other news stations (CNN, etc.) and know by comparison that the McNeil/Lehrer hour is by far the best as it does not present sound bites, but instead offers lengthy discussions from both sides of an issue. resulting in unbiased presentations. As for advertisements on PBS, it is true they have increased in length, but they are presented before and after the program, allowing uninterrupted viewing of the program itself. In addition to the News Hour, we enoy the stimulatiing, educational, enjoyable presentations on Masterpiece Theater, Nova, Ballroom Dancing, Frontline, Nature, Antique Roadshow (antiques, after all, are often "musty," and many others. As far as we are concerned, most commercial TV is TRASH wherein anything goes! Before cutting anything on PBS, there are a pletora of commercial and cable programs to choose from in this respect.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:07 PM	Tom Coleman : The NY Times raises question about PBS and the Newshour in particular that have to be a rhetorical question at best. To be blunt, I only trust the Newshour for my news. It is, compared to other sources, unbiased, thorough and relevant. Their anchor and correspondents are excellent. I always come away from the program better informed and appreciative. Thank you, Jim Lehrer, and the rest of the team for quality I've come to depend on.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:06 PM	R. McDaniel : PBS is more relevant than ever as the quality of network television continues to deteriorate. In particular, as the major networks (NBC, ABC, CBS) focus more on creating the news than reporting it, we depend on the News Hour for objective coverage of the most important news of the day. And as the networks' entertainment programming continues to sink lower and lower into the gutter, we especially appreciate the superb quality of programming available on PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:01 PM	Kos Films : PBS provides independent producers with an outlet that cannot be found with a large cable network conglomerate.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:58 AM	Maggi Moran : I am expatriate U.S.Citizen living in Canada. I subscribe to cable predominantly because I want to have PBS. Like so many others, I tire of the pop stars parade that is called news in commercial television. I leave my weekend mornings open for the truly great news shows and debate formats that PBS offers. The brilliant dramas and comedies are a joy. As far as I'm concerned the same earthquake that takes out Los Angeles can take out the New York Times. I wouldn't even notice.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:58 AM	Dennis Smith : The News Hour is my only source of TV news. Its summary of breaking news plus its in-depth coverage of important topics place it far above any competition. If I wanted 'entertainment news' or bloviating commentators I suppose I could turn to one of the "countless more channels..." but their product is generally terrible. PBS programming in general represents more than 90% of the TV I watch. I would be lost without it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:57 AM	J Doades : I am horrified to contemplate television without PBS. Commercial programing is somewhere between tedious and disgusting and often offensive - each program trying to outdo the last in showing body parts and/or shock content. Thanks to PBS there is a viable alternative.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:56 AM	Biff Hastings : There are only a couple of network shows I watch and those irregularly, except Jeopardy. But I never miss The New Hour. The ONLY news program worth watching. I rarely miss Washington Week, This Old House, The New Yankee Workshop. (And I don't do home fix-it stuff) And as for being a knock off, American Ballroom Challenge(I still don't know how what little those women are wearing stays put) was on long before Dances With Whatever. I've now discovered Sierra Center Stage and other music shows at another PBS affilaite. Real music with real talent. I watch Hometime and cooking shows. The British comedies. I'm even caught up in the Jane Austin stuff. Well, you get the idea. I wouldn't be watching TV if it weren't for PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:52 AM	w. enright : pbs news is the only news that is trustworthy.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:52 AM	Lily Barnett : I treasure PBS for the news: News Hour, BBC World News, DW-TV which give me a broad view of world news. I also watch Bill Moyers, occastional music program (NOT LAWRENCE WELK), & some English shows. But though I have access to 4 PBS channels, many evenings there is nothing I want to warch - too many self-help guru shows & others that are even worse than the networks!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:50 AM	E.O'Shea : McGrath wrote an absurd column. Jim Lehrer's News show is the only source we have for unbiased reporting on all issues. All other media is biased either left or right. One might say that other programming has gone abit downhill, but not the Newshour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:49 AM	Annie Bane : I am an intelligent senior that cannot afford cable or satellite television services. The ONLY source of informative, adult level televsion available to me and others like me is PBS. How can you just wipe this portion of the American population off the map in favor of the sexual offerings on local broadcast television or the greed of commercial networks. How sad our journalistic community has come to such close-minded opinion.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:47 AM	sclairet : Only in a dumbed down America would the necessity of PBS be in question. PBS is the only source of in depth news coverage in such programs as The News Hour, Bill Moyer's Journal, and Frontline, to name only three great news offerings. Contrary to Mr. McGrath’s argument, these programs stand apart from all other programs on TV in their distinction by not trolling for ratings. Also,are we really supposed to hold Jim Lehrer’s age and decades of excellence against him? PBS offers children’s programs far more educational and less commercial than any other airer. Sure, “Keeping Up Appearances” and “Are We Being Served?” are very dated, but they are examples of less sexualized sit com offerings than almost anything available on other stations. Though I was a huge fan of both Rome and The Sopranos, I, for one, revel in "Masterpiece's" production of Jane Austen's novels, and am really glad the didn't pander to a larger audience by updating it with a public sexuality that was not authentic to its time.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:47 AM	Sarah : One program that is a necessity is The Newshour on PBS And the programming on PBS is the best. I don't read the NY Times, so that paper isnt't necessary in my life.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:47 AM	B L Graham : Yes, PBS is necessary -- more than ever these days, when a few media conglomerates have snatched up the commercial TV stations and networks. My children grew up watching Sesame Street. My wife and I depend on Jim Lehrer and his team of excellent journalists to bring us the unbiased, in-depth reporting that makes the News Hour the best news broadcast on television. PBS provides a valuable public service that is much more deserving of federal funding than some other recipients of our tax dollars. Thanks to public funding, PBS is there for people who can't afford to contribute to their local stations, let alone subscribe to cable. My life does not revolve around television, but my television viewing revolves around KERA-TV and PBS. Let us not lose a national treasure.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:47 AM	Tony & Terry : After reading many of the comments posted, all I can say is that I agree with all of the positive statements in support of PBS. PBS is a national treasure that must not be weakened in any way.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:47 AM	Rita : The News Hour is the best news program on TV. The NPR news is also very important to me and I do listen to NPR programs from my computer's ITunes. I trust the PBS and NPR programs to give intelligent, balanced, and informative news. Thank you PBS and NPR.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:46 AM	Eric B : The Dumbing Down of America is an issue in this discussion. "Dumbing Down of America" is not a new idea, but it has reappeared recently in the news. The phrase applies to much of commercial TV programming, and has for many years. PBS, on the other hand, has done a superb job of broadcasting in many fields, at least until its funds were cut repeatedly,8-12 years ago. We certainly need PBS, but with the kind of support that brought us Ken Burns, to name just one of the outstanding artists whose works appear on PBS. Is it important for our children and grandchildren? You bet it is.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:45 AM	S Sweeney : PBS in general, and the "News Hour" in particular, is shamelessly bi-partisan in a left direction and thus should receive either NO public funding or an amount equal to that received by Fox!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:43 AM	Mary Wilson : As far as I'm concerned, there are no other TV channels than PBS. I commend the Newshour for its continued reminders of the loss of young (& older) lives in Iraq & Afghanistan; no one else seems to remember that we ARE at war.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:41 AM	Steve : Now, more than ever, with the monopolization of "news" sources (ideological marketplaces?), we need PBS. It is one of the few places that attempts balanced, objective, thought provoking (as opposed to mind numbing) programming.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:40 AM	Jean : PBS is the channel of choice in our household. We watch the News Hour every night, and look forward to Washington Week on Fridays. Both provide interesting, informative and balanced discussions of current news that cannot be found on any other channels. We also regularly watch NOVA, Bill Moyers, Frontline, Mystery--in fact, most of your interesting lineup. In addition,we have for years watched the children's programs with small grandchildren (we enjoy the programs too!) We are grateful to have such excellent fare for viewers of all ages. Thanks!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:39 AM	Ed Snyder : I watch and learn from Jim Lehrer and his entourage, Bill Moyers, Now with David B.,Frontline and some other PBS programs. BUT if you really want to get a window on the world and learn how most of the rest of the world thinks, CHECK OUT LINK TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:38 AM	Charles G. Shaver : I'd like to add to my prior comments that despite the fact that PBS also, generaly, is biased in favor of the failed two-party system of Republicans and Democrats (what other fox has been in charge of the hen house in the last 50 years?) and even the NewsHour, with all their in depth reporting, most often fails to remind the viewers of that fact and the other parties and perspectives; if PBS were fully funded with tax dollars, and political campaigning was limited to PBS, the hundreds of millions of dollars funneled into the coffers of corporate giants could be more constructively and productively utilized by supporting PBS. Of course, without a general uprising, the pro two-party establishment won't let that happen.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:38 AM	Ethel B. Frey : I've been watching the News Hour since 1980 when it was the McNeil/Leherer news half hour. I watch because it is the only unhyped daily TV news program that seeks to present the many facits of a situation in an atmosphere that stimulates my mental response. Nobody is shouting, except maybe in a news clip, nobody implies those listerning are incapable of thinking independently or infers that there is only one conclusion to be drawn. I feel I am being given an comprehensive, serious, opportunity to think about what is going on in the world. I would like to think that the New York Times thinks so too. That responses like those I have read on this site today is what it wished to encourage. Thank you, Jim, for the many "Good nights" we've shared over the years. I am certainly looking forward to many more.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:36 AM	KAnderson : PBS carries the ONLY nightly news show that offers quality and thoughtful discourse on the news

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:34 AM	Peter James : The News Hour is the only national news we watch. We record it to be sure we don't miss it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:32 AM	Active senior voter : I have access to many channels but three-fourths of my watchinbg is PBS and has been for many years. Only PBS has given me the political, economic, and military coverage that I have learned I can trust. And I prefer its non-serious stuff too, e.g. the British dramas and comedies.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:32 AM	j.brown : The News Hour and other PBS programming are something we must continue to have available to everyone on a daily basis. I'm appalled by the quality of the 'ratings / entertainment' broadcasts of other networks – especially those presented in the guise of news information. I paraphrase another viewer’s eloquent posting in describing PBS as …a gift to Americans from Americans. Washington should hang its head in shame for the cutbacks and restrictions directed at PBS. Let’s hope that the incoming Administration and Congress will be more enlightened than those of today seem to be.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:32 AM	Walter Dannhauser : I couldn't disagree more with Charles McGrath's comments [Feb. 17] re TV on PBS! Yes, there are "countless more channels to chose from" but, contrary to McGrath's opinion, very few have the "kind of stuff", or the quality offered on PBS-TV. Where are the consistent equivalents of "News Hour", "Frontline", "POV","Nova", "Live from Lincoln Center", etc. on commercial TV? And when a cable channel does offer something similar, it is interrupted by intrusive (often inane) commercials. Considering the entire universe of TV offerings, PBS-TV is still a jewel "amid all the dreck".

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:29 AM	Phyllis Yocum : The News Hour is the only news show I can find that reports relavent news indepth and invites knowledgeable guests, from both sides of the issue, to help explain the issue to viewers. I have watched the show religiously for as long as I can remember and still call it MacNeil-Lehrer.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:28 AM	G. C. Garrison : To attempt to undermine the finest public service broadcasting network in the world, which is the very personification of excellence in the journalism field as well as in providing consistently outstanding programming, is an amazingly self-serving affort to all the station's millions of fans. Always PBS rates highest among the public for the most respected news organization in the country. Those who value superior reporting, analysis and entertainment as well as those who cannot afford or don't want expensive cable programming, treasure the reliable excellence of PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:28 AM	Linda Newberry : In the era of struggle, pain, terror, violence and misjudgement amongst most of those who are responsible for civil government, PBS stands out as a voice in the wilderness. We watch The News Hour every night, and count on it for the majority of our information about what's happening in the world. That, combined with Frontline, Bill Moyers, NOW, POV, Washington Week in Review, the Independent Lens, and the culture and nature programs keep us well informed, as well as entertained. Then we make up our own minds about what's important. We also enjoy Antiques Roadshow and many other PBS programs. Everything about the station including the artistic advertisements for programming fits well to bring out the best in the world and us, not the worst, most violent aspects, as do most of the other stations. PLEASE KEEP IT ALIVE. WE NEED IT NOW MORE THAN EVER. Thanks.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:27 AM	Kate M : I've been a supporter of PBS and NPR for atleast 35 years. I can remember when the News Hour was only a half hour. Through all that time and all that our society has gone through, I have continued to be informed and enlightened by some very talented and hard working folks. We should not need to have this conversation as the merits of the products speak for themselves. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:26 AM	Barbara McDonald : The one program a day I am sure to watch is The New Hour. I can't imagine life with PBS. It offers unbiased reporting, programs that cover news, nature, culture and the whole spectrum of what's happening in the world, yesterday, today and tomorrow It is a light in the blight of TV land.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:26 AM	Dick Carpenter : Public Television is necessary. It is the living manifestation of the well settled public principle that the airwaves belong to all the people, not just the people with the most money! At a time when much of our media is controlled by fewer owners, most with little or no interest in investigative reporting, it is all the more important that public television, and public radio, for that matter, must continue and flourish!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:23 AM	eve : The New York Times is way off base. What we need is more programing like PBS. My mind would dry up and blow away if stations like PBS and C-Span(I II III) were not available. From those I get all the news, enlightened discussions, quality entertainment and general information I need to keep me happy. One thing the NYT offers that I do appreciate very much is their opinion columnist David Brooks that is part of the Firday night make up of the NEWS HOUR.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:22 AM	Chet Patterson : The News Hour's agenda is the one source on the television we trust to provide our family with the news - news that we can reflect upon without having to contend with the bias and burdensome clutter we are subjected to on the cable news channels. And, by the way, at 73, Jim Lehrer is as sharp as ever!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:22 AM	Deborah Middleton : I cannot imagine a life without pbs journalism, arts programs, and enlightened science and nature programming. If my household could have only one station there would be no indecision about what that would be - our local station channel 11 wttw in Chicago. Thank you for all you give us every day.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:21 AM	John Reidenbach : What's irrelevant is commercial TV. More than half of my TV viewing is PBS, starting with The Newshour. No where can I watch fifty plus minutes of continuous, impartial, balanced,in-depth,commercial-free news than The Newshour on PBS, and it's free. The other PBS news programs such as Washington Week and The McLaughlin Group are also very informative. Nowhere on TV can one watch such enlightening programs as Now and Bill Moyers Journal. Nowhere. Most commercial TV programming isn't worth watching. And you can quote me.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:20 AM	John Massie : PBS is necessary!!! The News Hour, Nova, Frontline, Antiques Roadshow, NOW, Bill Moyers Journal, and many, many other programs aired on PBS are my television viewing. I support my local station and believe federal support should be there. (I am also an avid listener to NPR and believe it should also have federal support.) Those who want hype and sensationalism in what is called "news" can go to FOX and see Murdoch's agenda.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:20 AM	phyllis : It's always instructive to see what Republicans say about cultural things. They couldn't care less about any instrument of higher learning to people who may never had a chane to paricipate. Like, seeing an opera on TV or watching a ballet or learning something quite erudite that regular news outlets would never show - or an interview such as Charlie Rose did some time ago with the curator of a museum explaining an extraordinary art exhibit being shown for the first time. Every country in the world that can afford to do so, and, I'm sure, some that can't, has provided back-up for the arts. I abhor the fact that the powers that be in my country would turn back to the old ways of thinking that artists have to take care of themselves and if necessary, atarve on their way to fame.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:19 AM	Jennifer Granrose : As an English woman,(living here for three years), I am dismayed by the shallow, commercial, egoisticaly styled television newscasts, where news is presented selectively in a declamatory, sensationalist way. What a relief to find the unbiased gravitas of NewsHour with its balanced, intelligent interviewers and often distinguished and always appropriately qualified contributers. Bill Moyers Journal too offers sustained thoughtful dialogue and commentary on current issues and new political developments and ideas. This is a sharp contrast to the glib shorthand soundbites on other channels. Recent history has shown us how vital accurate, questioning and honest reporting is, and what happens when we accept half truths, sloppy journalese, and dare I say it, damn lies. Most people obtain their current information from television and PBS has a powerful role to play in the education of the American people.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:17 AM	edith zahniser : We've been loyal and grateful watchers of PBS programs since their arrival in Nebraska years ago. Our children grew up with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, The Reading Rainbow etc. And now we are watching the Lehrer News Hour, Frontline, Independent Lens, NOW, Bill Moyers, Washington Week, Masterpiece Theater, Austin C.L. on a regular basis. We haven't found anything out there in Cable-Land that can equal them in quality, scope, and fairness. Yes, PBS offers the best, it is needed for the survival of our democracy.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:17 AM	Carrie Kent : PBS is more necessary today than ever before! The major networks are too corporate-minded. Watching the BBC news is a constant reminder of how ego-centric and commercialized our network news has become. One barely hears a mention of any news that happens outside U.S. borders. The NewsHour is a gem that I never miss. I love nothing more than to watch all the political "talking heads" on PBS each Friday night. I also enjoy the repeat broadcasts on Sunday mornings. I love the BritComs, "Now", Bill Moyer's Journal and Masterpiece. As others have written, I do not have cable and I count on PBS to provide about half of the programs I watch on t.v.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:14 AM	D.Ganoe : My TV viewing is limited to PBS and C-SPAN. The News Hour is the best.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:11 AM	Colette Bliss : I think the Times article missed a very crucial part of PBS. I live in Montana and we rely on PBS. We have yet to get a national election ad, we have only rare access to the New York Times(if the vendor can get a few Sunday ones days late), our local paper is thin and contains few national stories. Cable is very expensive in this relatively poor state - an come on, it is mostly Britney and school shooting coverage. I think this election cycle has shown how critical the voters are in ALL states and what a greater gift to democracy than the "musty" NewsHour which informs a lot of us and by-the-way a few Superdelegates that live around here.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:07 AM	Dolores J. Sarafinski, Ph.D : If the "News Hour" is removed from our TV schedule, where will we get our daily objective and intelligent presentation of the news? Certainly not from commercial television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:04 AM	John C : Although I have access to hundreds of channels (about 20 broadcast plus hundreds via my satellite dish), PBS represents well over 50% of my viewing. The News Hour is the only television news program that is structured around providing information, not entertainment. I watch it religiously every night. Other programs such as Frontline, American Experience, NOVA, Washington Week, NOW, P.O.V., Independent Lens, and Mill Moyers Journal are essential in keeping me up to date with issues and news that is important to me. And for entertainment along with information, there's nothing like Antiques Roadshow and History Detectives to balance things out. Thank you PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:04 AM	Paula : they obviously don't watch the program. it is surely the only program that we can count on to give a thorough and balanced discussion of the news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 11:02 AM	P Gassmann : The true Q being ignored is whether the New York Times is necessary. it is becoming more and more an imitation of Rupert Murdoch's news block. Why - except in response to it's past management and lying reporters' problems. It is as defunct as the Dow. Which predictably I learned is irrelevant as to actual economic trends-not in the NYT but on NPR. The only TV worth watching in the US is public. ironically because it does not pander to the public. If it is irrelevant why have the neocons plotted so constantly to take it away from us?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:58 AM	Andy R. : PBS is a gem that must continue - it is absolutely necessary!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:57 AM	j. perrin : The news hour is the only "news" program for in depth unbiased analysis. The content consist of real news which can impact our lives and way of living. No other network compares.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:57 AM	Ted Swanson : PBS is our preferred viewing on any evening. Why? Commericial-free programs; content you don't get on other stations, such as "Frontline," "Point of View," "Now," "Bill Moyers Journal." A News Hour that for an hour intelligently discusses issues thoroughly, with all sides given a hearing, without people shouting at each other. We never miss "Washington Week." Kids' shows without marketing. Yes, we've had a lot of Hyacinth, but "The Last of the Summer Wine" is always fresh. Keep CPB--we need it for sanity.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:56 AM	Michael Kischner : It's not that PBS is the best network we watch; it is the only one we watch. Two reasons: (1) We do not have cable (and there must be many out there like us) and (2) We care mostly about serious news and commentary delivered in reasonable tones. We can't seem to find these anywhere else.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:56 AM	Jean Krause : The newshour is the most objective news program on TV.It provides in deepth information and helps people to see both sides of a story.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:54 AM	Howard E. Leonard : I'm a retired aerospace manager and school teacher. The only news, in my opinion, worth following is on THE NEWS HOUR with JIM LEHRER. When I do watch, by mistake, an other news program I'm q1uickly reminded of the difference between "Class" and "flash/trash." The ny times must be getting desperate for readers.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:53 AM	Barb : As a teacher for 35 years,I can tell you that many kids are hooked on PBS once they get started.History is lively and cool there; theater for free;classics like "Masterpiece Theater" make Dickens great fun!They start to see how bad the sitcoms really are,once they see the good stuff. Yes,we need it!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:52 AM	Clarice Scott : I watch the News Hour every night, along with Bill Moyers and Now, religiously. The Nightly News does not speculate while reporting the news. Comments like, "this shooting may be race ralated" would not be spoken. They would say something like, "reason unknown". The nightly news broadcasts on the big 3 networks speculate and give information without substantial facts to back the story up just for the hype and lead ins to the story. I like the fact that I can get both sides of an issue from PBS. I trust them. I do not have the same trust in network news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:49 AM	Judy Evans, member and artist in Brooklyn : Public television and NPR are an oasis of sanity.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:49 AM	Cherie : Since corporate interests have taken ownership of virtualy all news media the content has become corrupted. PBS and NPR are the lone exceptions, providing balanced, factual reporting. Here alone can I gain information to form my own opinions.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:48 AM	walt grandy : The mere suggestion that we do away with PBS is an affront to the intellengence of tv watchers who seek knowledge as well as entertainment from the medium. PBS is the only thing that separates us from the vast wasteland of mostly non sensible, often vulgar commercial tv that comsumes the vast majority of channels. In the name of heaven, why would we want to eliminate it?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:47 AM	Ed Cole : I have watched News Hour, nightly, for 20 years. My wife and I are news "junkies". We watch CNN, Fox news, MSNBC, and we read Newsweek. I must say that we do detect a bias in PBS - pro-abortion, pro-gay and anti Catholic, but we are able to overlook these and find that PBS, compared with the networks and other cable outlets, is still the most balanced, thorough and acurate source of news. Please keep airing News Hour. We would appreciate curbing your biases, however.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:45 AM	Johnny Majic : I love PBS, but maybe how its programming is delivered should be changed. An HBO on demand style programming is something I would subscribe too, and pay a premium for, and I suspect so would many others. This may change the orientation of the programming towards the market, for example Charlie Rose might interview more stars aiming to publicize than discuss, but at least it would save the network. Frankly I think with modification PBS would do very well in the market. Despite there being hundreds of specialty channels, a viewer can only watch one at a time, so their being an increasing amount just means they’re not getting satisfied. This is a chance I think. Imagine HBO quality drama with PBS quality journalism, how much would that be worth? People already pay for crap, why wouldn’t they pay for gold?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:45 AM	Allison Ward : So the NYTIMES queries, or rather suggests the public query themselves over PBS' necessity. Et tu Brutus? Prescisely the polarizing crap the jealous throng employ these days to attempt to recapture those elusive (read: thinking) readers. How ironic that those media who have already fallen prey to watered down content with multiple feet of advertising per square inch in print and noisey sound bytes (meant to be ..cute?)ON TOP OF distracting graphics(yes YOU Olbermann)so easily locate the sufficient length of intestinal plumbing to suggest a validity study be conducted regarding the only media-of any stripe-which has never found the aforementioned watering necessary. I have always enjoyed the Jim Lerher News Hour BECAUSE they are able to succeed in broadcasting the most insightful, relevant, factual and non-graphic laden broadcasts are none. To all the News Hour staff: I fully realize the better quality programs to which each of you contribute every night and I specifically seek your broadcasts our for it. No one matches your program's type of content, subjects, guests and the non-polarizing tone you consistently achieve. I fund you and I thank you.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:44 AM	Sam Huang : I live in the UK and we have a similar problem with our British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Fortunately, we're obliged to pay for this thing called the TV Licence fee (a few hundred dollars annually), so there is no funding problem for the BBC. The problem is, what is the BBC for? We still believe that the BBC has a role to play in terms of informing the public about serious affairs on politics, international affairs, public policies etc. PBS has a role to play in the USA. I have been watching "Frontline", "NOW", "The Journal", Wide Angle" for years and they actually have better quality news documentary programmes than the BBC. I am aware that they are facing competition from the commercial stations like CNN and more recently, Al-Jazerra, they still have roles to play. Go! PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:44 AM	Thomas H Jerdee : PBS programing is far superior to commercial fare. Is there a way to broaden support for PBS so that we don't have to tune out during those incessant fund drives?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:42 AM	Sun Valley Sun : Reporting the news of the day in 10 drama free minutes- justifies every dollar spent on PBS TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:41 AM	Cynthia W : I watch PBS daily. NBR, The News Hour, BBC World News and Charlie Rose top the list. I like some of the Masterpiece Theatre programs, Nova, Between the Lions, Independent Lens and Ballroom Dancing. What I don't like are the dull music programs (peter paul and mary ad nauseum) and so-called 'viewer's favorites' (yanni or whoever and the clog dancers) during pledge periods. They're a major turn-off. PBS is important and relevant and necessary.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:41 AM	Hugo : I work primarily with Europeans in a New York office. We all agree that the only worthwhile daily news appears on PBS, the McNeil news hour which is the one most widely watched from overseas as well, and the rebroadcast of BBC News. I grew up with PBS and the only current drawback is its lack of funding by the Republic Party (sic) which may have something to do with the tendentious op-ed article that perceives it as not as effective as it could be. If PBS did not exist, we would all be subscribing to European channels which have fostered their educational channels effectively and to the advantage of their populations since WWII. The NYT should be ashamed to have presented such an unbalanced article.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:40 AM	N. Huntsman : Our family watches the Newshour almost every night. That, NPR and the NYT are our primary news sources out here in Utah's Republican country. We rely on the Newshour's thoughtful commentary and reasoned debate as an antidote to the toxic discourse that surrounds us. It is our hope that the pendulum will reverse course and the Newshour will become the standard of news and discussion.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:35 AM	Michael : Same old tired argument that misses the point. PBS still provides a mostly unbiased and adult viewpoint that is sorely missing from commercial television, broadcast and cable. The depth and quality of the coverage is not matched anywhere, with the possible exception of BBC programs, also non-commercial.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:34 AM	Marcella Gittrich : PBS is the only news hour that I watch and trust. It would be a tremendous loss to the viewers if it were taken off the air.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:34 AM	Jim from St. Louis : I, too, am a regular viewer of The News Hour and benefit from it...would not want to see it go away. But I think the Times article was largely correct. Choice for TV viewers is dramatically expanding and PBS programming does seem to be lagging--certainly not the source of innovative programming I recall from watching PBS for several decades now. PBS is very predictable. This is a source of comfort for many, but I think holding an audience will be a challenge.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:34 AM	Rob Ruce : The News Hour is more "relevant" to me than the NY Times. Period. The NY Times, who jumped onboard the war train hot and heavy in my opinion, should ask themselves: "How objective is our editorial board when it comes to US policy towards the middle east?" I don't recall the News Hour editorializing in favor or against the US invasion of Iraq. I consider PBS one of the few bright spots left on over-the-air reportage and broadcasting. I gave up satellite and cable and I intend to avoid both from here on out. Why should I pay a monthly fee to view more advertising, and so often, rookie-level journalism and slanted editorial leanings?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:31 AM	CC : The News Hour is the one place where we find news both National and International that is important and covered in depth. We TIVO the News Hour and watch it nightly later in the evening. And we particularly enjoy Friday nights when we can watch Bill Moyer's new show, Washington Week, and Now. A great night! We would not know where to turn for news if the News Hour was no longer broadcast. CC

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:31 AM	Norma Jean Suhr : Irrelevant, they say? I plan my meal preparation around the times for The News Hour and Washington Week! What could be more relevant than that?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:29 AM	Mary Brooks : A loss of PBS (News, Documentaries, Friday night brilliance, Science, Technology, Nature) would be a sad and important loss to this American's life!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:28 AM	Peter : Despite the age of the anchor, I find the News Hour to be the best news show on TV. They hit the highlights that the national network news shows cover and then they have reasoned discussions of important issues by experts in the field. You can't get that kind of discussion anywhere else on TV. If my member of Congress indicated opposition to PBS funding, I would vote against them, on that issue alone.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:28 AM	Jim Moyers : I haven't read the Times article but still cannot help but wonder what planet the author and his/her editor, who okayed it for print, inhabit. The News Hour with Juim Lehrer is balanced reporting and does not give us the repetitious sensationalism that we generally receive from network and cable channels. We also always try to watch Washington Week. It is much superior to the network and cable channel shoutfests that pass for political dialogue. We don't realize how much we need these programs until we're on a trip or cruise where we are unable to watch them. For non news programs: Come on, guys, where else can we see things, for example, like the Ken Burns specials or the American Experience? Howzabout the children's programs? It's been years since our children watched Sesame Street spellbound but I sure would like my grandchildren and other children to have the same TV viewing opportunities. Is the Times seriously suggesting that cable and networks provide superior programs?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:27 AM	ilse pinkus : PBS is the ONLY relevant TV program provider!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:25 AM	Pat Dugan : The news on PBS and NPR is presented with no hype, intelligent and courteous discussion by both sides of every issue. I do not watch any other news.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:24 AM	P&J: : Our family regularly watches and supports PBS. Some of our favorite programs are the NewsHour,BillMoyers, NOW, Washington Week, Mclaughlin, and Frontline. PBS is our choice for watching coverage of major public events. We also support and listen to NPR. Also, we read and subscribe to our local newspaper and several magazines, as well as following The New York Times at our local library. Increasingly, an effort to remain informed citizens requires the most trustworthy and thoughtful journalism available. That's why we rely on PBS and consider it and the NewsHour indispensable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:24 AM	Norine Panicker : PBS Newshour is the only news in America worth listening to for its unbiased and deeper vocerage of the issues that really matter to American and the world at large. Where else do you see the real sacrifices of the war dead as everything is covered up with light entertainment called TV news? Especially as print news is less relevant and utilized, there is no other outlet for real facts and serious journalism. Thank you PBS and Jim Leher for all you do for our society.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:24 AM	Calvin Guthridge : PBS is our only reason for having a TV set. Life without Paul Kangas and the nightly business program followed by the News Hour with Jim Lerher and the Friday night news programs would leave a void in our lives. Commercial TV is an insult!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:23 AM	Baitzar : Please I depend on the NewsHour. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:22 AM	sal : We prefer the News Hour to any other evening program. BUT, in covering the primaries, too much time is devoted to the "Horse Race" (which CNN etc can do) and not enough to issues. For instance, how do the various candidates differ on immigration, taxation, how to end the war (and what do we owe the Iraqi people who have helped us there), etc. etc. How would our lives be affected by different approaches to important issues. More substance needed! This is especially true of Washington Week which has become parochial.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:19 AM	M. Arline Sumner : PBS is I believe one of the FEW independent news organizations left in this country that performs the Fourth estate function of informing the people. Virtually every other outlet is owned by large corporations who can influence the content and lack of fairness and contrast of views which Lehrer News Hour does. Similarly "Bill Moyers", the BBC, and Frontline, Independent lens. Why don't people vote anymore? The soundbites on commercial TV give them no real information on issues that a democracy must have to make intelligent choices. Of course the demogogues in the current imperial presidency want to shut off the people from their government. People's ignorance allow them to do most of their decision-making in secret, the absolutely opposite of what stands for "democracy" that Bush and company keep prattling about. If such action is taken please put me on a list of donors to fight a battle over the First or any other legal basis will allow. I want my rights BACK.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:17 AM	Robert Rogers : PBS is about the only station we watch anymore. We trust its news and editorials, and enjoy its programing. Friday night is devoted to PBS, expecially to watching Bill Moyer's Journal. It would be terrible if the work of this station was curtailed or eliminated.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:11 AM	Chicago : Thanks for the entertaining and thoughtful TV viewing PBS provides. PBS can not be judged by the same viewership criteria that awards $6,000,000 to J-Lo for pictures of her twins. To follow the Times argument defies common sense. A larger bugdet generally works miracles for the problems of any business. The News Hour is the only TV news my wife and I trust. Bill Moyers fact finding on our citizen's behalf could hardly be categorized as hand wringing.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:11 AM	Don&Mary : It would be unbearable to think we would have to rely on commercial TV for our evening news! We do not watch much TV, but Jim Lehrer's News Hour is an important exception.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:09 AM	bill wolf : The only reason which I can think of supporting the contention that "PBS is no longer relevant" is that PBS often calls into question the actions and beliefs of the conservative right wing. At the risk of being labled a liberal, I think that these conservative policies -- especially those advanced by the current administration -- MUST be called into question. Otherwise, we would all have to listen to FOX news!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:08 AM	Joan&Robert Fresher : How foolish can he Times be--PBS is probably the only relevant news source on TV today. We watch it nightly and support it yearly. It is the only news source that tries to present an unbiased point of view. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is probably the best news source today on TV followed by BBC. Maybe the Times should check its' relevancy.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:08 AM	D. B. Miller : PBS carries the type of program that I enjoy. I like the News Hour because it strives to present differing opinions and information. The point that cable carries more and better programing doesn't help people who do not subscribe to cable. Please do everything possible to keep PBS on the air.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:07 AM	Dena Rose : We are regular viewers of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and crew; I only wish this program was twice the length! I read two newspapers almost daily but feel the need to see and hear what leading decision- makers have to say. The Nightly Business Report, Frontline and many other PBS stations provide the only worthwhile TV watching; we'd be lost without these and especially if we lose Jim Lehrer's program. We're also happy to see the return of Judy Woodruff.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:07 AM	yassaman Behmanesh : I watch pbs News every night, its still better than the other Network and cable news but not as liberal as it used to be. The international discussions are always conservative, they don't want to hurt anybody or any side. There are always the same people with the same conservative point of views.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:05 AM	Virginia : It is good to see that on the Times comment section the number of people recommending the positive responses hugely exceeds the number of people recommending the negative ones. I hope that PBS will use the comments on the Times and Newshour in some way to get the message out to our lawmakers so that it doesn't remain a "preaching to the converted" situation. I hardly ever watch anything other than PBS and don't care to pay an extra $60 a month for cable but I won't repeat the accolades for all the adult programs. I do want to mention that I am very impressed by the children's programs. I don't have children but now that I am at home during the day I often find myself drawn into children's programs while rewinding tapes, etc. I see a consistent pattern of program after program reinforcing positive values: being kind to others, sharing, caring, doing good things for the community, etc. Also, promoting reading and science in fun ways and helping children deal with feelings. Parents are very lucky to have this resource.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:04 AM	David Weber : The News Hour on PBS with Jim Lehrer provides an outstanding service with its objective and high quality nightly reporting of the news. The program consistently exceeds the quality of all other reporting services available for viewing on television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 10:01 AM	Bill Friend : Even though PBS has seemed to me to run much less interesting programs in the past few years, the news programs are the big exception. You can't be fully informed just by watching Jim Lehrer (or by reading the NY Times) but cable news, with its blatant prejudices and ceaseless ads, is much worse and much less informative. Gwen Ifill runs the only fully adult talk show. So what kind of nonsense is the Times printing?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:57 AM	Andrew : I would just like to say I enjoy the great programming provided by my local PBS. The News hour and NOVA have no equal on cable television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:55 AM	David Gorn : Much of it is true. I take exception to some of it, like trying to diss the Lehrer News Hour because of Lehrer's age, and that's ridiculous. That program is the best thing on public TV, and it's so far superior to other news programs, I don't even know where to begin. The News Hour is sort of the NPR of public TV, if that makes sense -- it fills the same news void that exists in the radio world. I grew up with Channel 9 in San Francisco, and I'm sure it had its share of mediocre programming -- but I really don't remember it that way. It was the kind of station where you could turn it to Channel 9 and see something interesting. That's no longer true. Way too many infomercials about financial salvation, Lawrence Welk reruns, and just ... I don't know, boring TV. We're lucky in SF to have some great local programming, Quest and a bunch of specials about local history and culture. But here's what it comes down to for me: With NPR, no matter when I turn it on, it's good. It's always good. With PBS, I used to feel that way -- jeez, even the auction was done with flair and fun -- but now it's generally boring and pedantic, and sometimes it looks like an outright sell-out. Like it's not public TV anymore. Thanks for reading. David Gorn

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:52 AM	Susan Portis : Our family watches The News Hour every night and Washington Week every Friday. We very much look forward to the expansion of the nightly network news that they provide.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:52 AM	virginia Kingston : Broadcast television is an insult to my sensitivities. It's loud, unpleasant to view and often obscene. Most programs are hard to watch as well. No wonder the young people are hyperactive. PBS is more relaxed and offers the spectrum of political programs ranging from conservative to liberal. While the 'commercials' are longer and more plentiful than they were, they are still tasteful and quiet. I also believe they do not affect the content of the programs.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:50 AM	Ann Williams : I like the News Hour and would be disappointed if it is not there every night. I watch it after watching NBC and CBS for a different point of view. Ann

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:48 AM	norman m christensen : If PBS is no longer necessary then clean air and water are likewise no longer necessary. My wife and I watch Jim Lehrer and The News Hour every night, often with a cocktail in hand. The thought of watching commercial television in its place leaves me concerned and downcast.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:47 AM	James : NewsHour is the BEST! Watch it every night. Terrific staff. Great guests.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:46 AM	Arthur and Regine Gunlicks : We watch some sports events and some news on CNN, but mostly we watch public television. We watch the news programs on a regular basis, and we often watch theatrical productions, Antique Road Show, and other programs. We would be distressed if PBS programs were to be sharply reduced or even eliminated, which we would view as a serious cultural decline. NPR is the only radio station we listen to, and we cannot imagine not having it available.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:41 AM	Doug and Jeannie Amidon : We are committed to staying informed by watching The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. (If we don't watch it live, we record it and watch it later.) Nowhere do we get the depth and quality of coverage as with The Newshour: in-depth discussions, various sides of issues, Shields and Brookes, good questions by staff, etc. Our local news comes on before The Newshour and it pales by comparison. (Even "World News Tonight with Charles Gibson," as good as it is, does not inform like The Newshour.) This is why we support our local PBS station with our money.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:40 AM	Victoria O'Neill : My husband and I ONLY watch The News Hour each night, and sometimes listen to NPR radio during the day. The quality of the news on both is so important to us. They are the only newscasts where we get the whole story, as well as both sides. Network news in recent years has become just all ads and soundbites. The country needs especially the Nightly News hour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:38 AM	Melissa : I am 25 years old, and the NewsHour, Nature, and Nova are among my favorite television programs. The suggestion that quality programs like those could be replaced by the fluff that one finds on cable is absolutely absurd. There is nothing irrelevant or old-fashioned about well-researched, informative, and straightforward television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:34 AM	Philip and Cecilia Noss : PBS is extremely relevant! We are grateful for in-depth informative programs, including news and news analysis -- and all without a great amount of distracting advertisement. CARRY ON! P & C Noss

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:33 AM	Kelly O : Did the NYT forget about PBS kids programs? They are a mainstay in my house, the only place I know my kids will see educational, commercial free programs, content completely age appropriate. While I understand the point of the article, highlighting one age group of viewership, my 87 year old grandmother, I am writing to suggest another, a 38 year old mom of 2 boys. In addition to my little guys, I myself enjoy Frontline and Independent Lens, these programs stay with me for a long time and are not duplicated on the cable offerings. Thank you PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:33 AM	J DeLuca : PBS is absolutely necessary to my information intake. The NewsHour provides news on the TV with a fair and objective view to the day's news without all of the commercials, spin, and drivel of the major networks. And not everyone wants to read the paper every day, although I most often do. We need to protect the NewsHour for those people, too. Not to mention Nature, Frontline, and all of the other awesome programs that have no match anywhere else.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:32 AM	Gwen : PBS is the best!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:32 AM	SD Mpls : Without PBS we'd rarely turn our TV on. The programs are thought provoking and timely. We've supported PBS for years and will continue to do so.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:31 AM	sirtah : PBS is very relevant in my life. I can't watch the NewsHour when it airs but I always listen to the previous night's show the following morning. The NewsHour is, in my opinion, the best news program in existence. Keep up the good work, sirtah

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:27 AM	donna mcfadden : thank you for the opportunity to reply. reviewing the NYT article, the point which could be made is as follows. Many Americans now have thousands of sources for information. PBS has a smaller, fiercely loyal audience that will watch and listen no matter how they communicate to us. I for one am thrilled to find more digital format for the news hour, frontline, bill moyers, and now. Are the number of hits on these sites considered in how we reach more people? there are times in my life i feel like a trained animal turning my tv on a 6 pm for the news hour at exactly 6 pm. surely a savvy person would record it and listen at their leisure, but there i am watching one of the most balanced news programs available at exactly 6 pm. and so i plan to keep watching for as long as possible. the new format is quite stunning, the news hours staff is informed and fair and provide what is sorely lacking. the question is availability in other formats. we should seek additional ways to get into the digital format and be available anytime. ah, but no news hour? no now? it would be a catastrophe.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:27 AM	James Eldredge : "What if the glory days of public television are past recapturing;" I can't believe you said that. Of course the Bush administration has tried to cut the PBS budget. To question the continuing value of The News Hour, Frontline, Washington Week, Nova, Nature, Masterpiece Theater, etc. is, excuse me, absurd. News papers may be in financial trouble but PBS shouldn't be. We don't burn books here ... do we? By the way, I hope I can hear Jim Leher's voice for another 73 years.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:24 AM	Mary Lee Bartlett : PBS provides the most informative and entertaining programs on TV without a hidden or not so hidden agenda. The News Hour and the other programs like Bill Moyers are the only balanced news, the rest of TV journalism is only entertainment aimed at dumbing down all debate. PBS is more than necessary, it is essential.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:21 AM	Sandy Takacs : Please, please keep braodcasting the Newshour and your other insightful programmes which report and comment on our society. We listen from Ontario, Canada and find that through your programming we acquire a more respectful view of the struggles faced by the USA. A format that gives a longer time for each news item is very important.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:19 AM	Bert & Carol Smith : To question the relevancy of the News Hour and PBS's contribution to the coverage of world events is ludicrous. It is an oasis in the desert of trash and sensationalism for the sake of ratings.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:17 AM	Doug Graybill : I am a regular viewer of PBS News Hour. Its balanced and more detailed discussion of topics is a welcomed changed from the major networks. If Washington would eliminate a few useless expenditures for some senator's home town, it would have more than enough money to double the PBS budget.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:16 AM	salsaqt : PBS is a MUST have. From its very beginning it has given us - the public - more complete and diversified information that has never and will never be given by corp. media.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:16 AM	rfox : Both the News Hour and Charlie Rose are superior anything the Times is doing. I can do without David Brooks and Bill Kristol.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:12 AM	Lynne H. Einig : Our major media have been dumbing down their content for decades. Look at the result--a populace lacking in knowledge or correct perception. P.B.S is a rose among this field of broadcasting thorns. It provides unbiased news reporting through the News Hour and other programs, and education and culture for adults and children throughout the day.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:12 AM	Bruce R. Jensen : PBS is the best thing on the air. The quality and variety is better than anything commercial TV has to offer.This begs the question, is commercial television relevent?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:06 AM	Lucy Mothershead : The only news I trust on USA media is found at PBS and NPR. I depend on PBS for accurate and in depth information.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:06 AM	mary ellen banks : Hey, 73 is the new 37...what a low blow Jim...obviously someone has ethical abstract-thinking envy. I firmly believe that with age comes wisdom, and a superlative world view. And, I know you are the rock star of news for my grandniece who is not yet eight years old. I love the News Hour, and Friday night would not be complete without the terrific lineup that exists. Sound bite news is so inadequate, and the news division of PBS fills a much needed void. Thank you for your journalistic integrity.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:03 AM	Helen Okobokekeimei : PBS is still necessary because its very educational and it gives me the in-depth analysis of the news. I been watch PBS since 2004 and been advocating that PBS should stay on the air. I love all of my PBS programs like "The Newshour with Jim Lehrer", "Frontline", "Frontline/World", "Nature", "Masterpiece", "Mystery", "NOVA", "Wired Science", "American Experience", "P.O.V", "Independent Lens", "Sesame Street", "Design Squad", and the rest of the PBS programs. I don't want these programs to go extinct. I am the only person in my family that watch PBS everyday and be learning from it and talking to others about the episode. PBS is a huge important piece of my life and I always want to learn by watching PBS, and develop my own viewpoint. I get all my news from PBS, I get my love of science from PBS, my childhood playtime from PBS, my like of literature from PBS, my passion of history from PBS, and everything about fun and life from PBS. I get everything from PBS and I am proud of that. I care about PBS and I am glad its in my life because without PBS I wouldn't be able to have a sense of reasoning, learning, my passion of science, history, and literature, and to have my feedback on everything that happens in America today. PBS was created in 1967 by the document "The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967" in order to promote learning, intelligence, intellect, fun, inform, life, and fundamental. I will not let Congress, the stupid New York Times writer, and people who do not watch the Public Broadcasting Service(PBS) says that PBS sucks. There a million of people that watch PBS every night in their homes to be fastinated, learn, be inform, to know, to grow, and to be. I am teenager and have learning diasabilties and I love and respect PBS so much, that I will become a PBS member. Also NPR should stay as well. It is the same as PBS except it is on the radio. When I have children, I will be purchasing educational toyse, dvds, games, and let them watch PBS because it is non-violent, and its very useful in education. I trust PBS as my sources for History, Science, Literature, Math, News, Documentaries about Life, College, and EVERYTHING! I will prevent the Legislative Branch from cutting PBS & NPR perimentaly. I want to save to it! Watching PBS gives my hope, confidence, experience, respect, laughter, and strength that there are other people just me that watchs PBS! That writer from the New York Times may know the sidepoints of PBS, but he doesn't know a thing about PBS nor watch it. I am very outraged about what that New York Times writer said about PBS. I am deguisted by this. I am sure that all of the young people agrees with me that PBS is education and is very interesting. I will not let the writer say useless things about PBS. Its all wrong, and everybody knows that even the toddlers, the pre-teens, the teenagers like myself, and adults, and the edlery, and the infants knows that PBS IS BETTER AND VERY EXCELLENT! What this writer is saying is barractic! Barractic I say! I will support PBS and NPR, and put it in my will and trust fund, until the day I die! So, PBS & NPR shall by save by its viewers because we care very much over 899%. PBS I thank you for all of the educational mentoring that you gave me and I hope you give me more for many years to come. This goes for NPR. I appcreaite it and I thank you for that! KEEP UP THE PROFOUNDING EXCELLENT WORK NPR & PBS! You will be in everybody lives, my life included, and in the future forever! Indeed you shall! I am very glad that I joined the club for PBS, The fan club for PBS, and the club for NPR. I am very very proud of that. For, PBS and NPR I thank you. So, thank you very much!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 09:00 AM	Bill Berthrong : Mr. McGrath is way off the mark. The News Hour alone is enough reason to support PBS and the other fine programing informs us (and there are some of us who can't get affordable cable access) about our natural world, advancements in science, and documentaries such as Frontline that are not tainted by commercialism and are not afraid to expose mistakes and excesses in government and business. Drama and other entertainment shows on PBS are not quite up to where they once were, but that is likely do to choices by the entertainment producers as well as the high cost of news coverage and declining revenue. Mr. McGrath may choose to fry his brain on commercial TV or cable, but PBS is still very relevant.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:55 AM	William Dogani : For me out here In Tanzania, E.africa, Jim Lehrer's team, The McLaughlin Group, Brian Lamb on C-Span provide magnificent television viewing; not otherwise please. The PBS programs are fine.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:55 AM	Stephen Kellogg : To answer McGrath's rhetorical title question in one word, "YES". His contention that cable stations offer the same, only better, programming is patently absurd, especially when it comes to public affairs and programs like The News Hour, Washington Week and Bill Moyers. There is no other source of calm, reasoned and balanced coverage of the events that shape our lives. God help us if we lose the investigative reporting of a Frontline or Independent Lens.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:53 AM	Bruce Levin : Charles McGrath's NYTimes piece "Is PBS Still Necessary" presents a subtle but compelling argument for increasing the budget for PBS, which I am sure was his real intention. If there were more support for Public Television, they could compete for those over priced, innovative but worthwhile shows and update what McGrath unfairly (doubtless, he’s being subtle again) refers to the "mustiness" of PBS's long-standing but still greatly appreciated programs.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:53 AM	Rockford Weber : The NewsHour and Washington Week have been my PRIMARY source of news for my entire adult life. PBS continues to set the standard that all journalist outlets should aspire to.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:44 AM	Joyce W Garner : The News Hour is the only daily news show that I now watch. The networks, CNN, and FOX are all propaganda driven, sound-bite drivel. It is embarrassing that they are even called news shows. I am grateful that real journalists still exist and that the news is presented, not in cute sound bites, but in depth and with discussion by people who have insight into the reality of what is happening in the world. Thank you for the hard work and diligence it takes to make this happen. Please keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:44 AM	BJP : The quality of PBS programs, whether TV or radio, is extraordinary, and has kept on improving over the years (good examples of improvement are Nova, and "All things considered"). We receive HDTV through the airwaves and capture two PBS stations (KQED and KCSM), for a total of 6 channels. We do not subscribe to cable or satellite TV, and cannot stand their hype: 100 junk channels. Congress needs to increase support to PBS, not diminish it. We find the News Hour quite unbiased. We love the Podcasts. We love the PBS close relationship with BBC. Our only negative comment is for the KQED PBS channel dedicated to kids programming. The quality is very uneven. There is no need for continuous broadcasting of kids stuff. The channel should be focused on pushing parents to read to their kids and on kids reading. PBS needs to encourage less infant / kid watching of TV, not more, and warn of the danger of "close-loop wiring" of the brain through TV and video games. May be it would diminish the number of attention deficit disorder and autism cases! Retired registered Republicans. Bernard & Joan.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:41 AM	Hannelore Eck : PBS programs are the first I turn to for background information. They are indispensible for staying informed and a huge variety of issues.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:39 AM	John Suhr : It is hard to imagine life without PBS and all the old familiar faces and other new ones yet to come. The ratings share is irrelevant to me and my wife; in fact the other sources of news and programming are so shallow and usually trivial that if PBS were to be reduced or lost our TV and assorted ancillary stuff would be almost entirely unused except for the occasional movie. PBS is a lifeline to sensible and intelligent media presentation and programming. I do not watch all the programming but it is our favorite source for many types of programs, most unavailable from any other outlet. Without PBS life would be unalterably impoverished. Most other channel programming is barely skin deep compared to the in-depth treatment offered by PBS. Frankly, without PBS television would fall into that abysmal chasm of meaninglessness predicted by Edward R. Murrow all those years ago. The Lehrer Report alone is worth all the other news networks put together and still stands heads and shoulders above them all. PBS is a lifeline in an ocean of petty chatter, a true National Treasure!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:36 AM	Lois Schlachter : The News Hour is so very important for indetail news. It is my only news station that I watch. i trust the News Hour. WE NEED TO KEEP THE NEWS HOUR ON THE AIR. Lois Schlachter

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:30 AM	annette brassard : pbs still relevant .my source for news and nature programming.Don,t want to live without it .Have supported it for 30 years.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:21 AM	Aphxgrp : The News Hour is the only balanced representation of the day's news on television today. Unlike network news, the News Hour expands on important topics and presents opposing views on sometimes complex topics that cannot be discussed in 3 sentences or sound bites like they do on the network news. I found the Times article apalling. How could a news publisher like the New York Times, long known for its expansive presentations and discussions on a wide range of topics, (their Science Section alone is larger than the majority of state level newspapers in the U.S.), critize the News Hour as irrelevant? Makes no sense to me.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:10 AM	Brian in OZ : I haven't yet read the article, but ANY suggestion that "we" (= the rest of the world as well as USA) don't need PBS, and especially the Jim Lehrer Hour, is totally beneath contempt. The Gray Lady having a senior moment, perhaps, but still most regrettable and a very bad influence. I do hope the super-talented Maureen Dowd takes up the cudgels for Public TV against the editorial(unless she wrote the article. Gulp!) Brian in OZ "Throw another (NY)Times writer on the barbie!" (Jason was cooked ages ago!)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:09 AM	richerain : PBS public affairs programming, and the Newshour, Frontline, and Washington Week in particular, have NEVER been more important, more relevant or more NECESSARY. I've been watching these programs for as long as they've been on the air and there still are no alternatives. Keep up the great work!! Amen.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:08 AM	Edward R. Olkkola : My wife and I listen and watch PBS radio and television all the time and love it. Commercial television is terrible, we rarely watch it. I strongly feel that PBS is very relevent.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:06 AM	diane : PBS television is important and relevant. It is the only place where I can get unbiased news - The News Hour - and liberal views - Frontline, Bill Moyers, etc - that counter the blather one gets on Fox and the other cable and network stations.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 08:01 AM	Walter Grochmal : PBS is unparalleled in what it offers viewers. It truly informs, enlightens, and entertains and does so with a minimal amount of commercial content. In Maine it is available to most people without paying a cable or satellite TV monthly bill. I have been a viewer and supporter of PBS since the 70's and can justify a generous donation in lieu of that monthly bill and wish more viewers would consider supporting PBS. The program, Antiques Road Show has a saying which can easily apply to PBS . . . It is a National Treasure.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:57 AM	Carl Bistrack : I can’t go into the many, many reasons to value PBS programming as an independent, balanced, noncommercial source of programming, but offer one example. While I’m not a news junkie, I’m a dedicated News Hour viewer. Jim Lehrer has provided a constantly surprising source of in-depth and balanced reporting not found on commercial stations. Obvious efforts are made to get at the factual details and opinions on both side of an issue – sometimes boring if not interested in a particular subject – to portray a complete, rounded report. Rare! Commercial stations provide deadline-oriented, not-quite-ready-complete-or-balanced reports, or polled, focus-grouped, subject-topical shot-em-up, limited-time-slotted reporting. Yes, I confess to liking both news styles. But, will always rely on Lehrer to get at the details. The News Hour does it right.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:45 AM	Lauren D : The News Hour, Nightly Business Report, Now, Bill Moyers, McLaughlin Report, Washington Week, American Masters, Frontline, Independent Lens,and Nova are some of the programs I have recorded each time they are presented. Where else can intelligent people find informatiom that is not dumbed down and drama for the sake of "drama?"

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:42 AM	Retired_Prof_Gainesville_FL : I watch the News Hour EVERY evening and would not miss it for the world. Other TV news sources do not even come close in terms of content and balance. I also listen to NPR exclusivily when in my car, for the same reasons. Our world would be a much poorer place without public broadcasting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:34 AM	Therese Duarte : Programs such as The Jim Lehrer News Hour and Bill Moyers Journal on TV and The Diane Rehms Show and Kojo Nambi on radio, are a terrific source of information about current events and other topics of interest as well as newly published boooks. The wonderful thing about these programs is that you get a chance to see and hear the people who have first hand knowledge of the news event such as ambassadors and Congressmen and leaders of countries and authors and poets. To me it is a great privilege to see and hear these individuals. PBS has the ability and desire to present information in depth. We need PBS to continue to provide their outstanding programs.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:32 AM	Carol & Steve Dreyfuss : We have been listeners and viewers for 45 yrs. and find PBS the only consistant source of credible, reliable and , for the most part unbiased news. Without it, we would feel lost in this sound bite world.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:29 AM	Jim Adams : PBS is all we watch for evening news. If there were no PBS evening news, we would have very limited choice of information. They show no bias and keep the topic in front of you long enough to understand the ramifications.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:29 AM	E. Rubin : I have watched the news hour for many years. When I was a young mother with small children I only caught little snatches of it. I used to envy my parents who could sit down at their leisure and absorb the news on PBS in depth. Now, many years later, I have the time to watch the whole hour and I am rewarded by a kind of coverage I find no where else. Just one example of the difference is the respectful, meaningful and ultimately empowering way they present the faces of the men and women killed in the on going war. This powerful head on view of the soldiers who have died in our name honors the dead while serving as a call to action for the rest of us...and they present this all without comment. The Newshour, Bill Moyers, Frontline World, Independent Lens and the new "Masterpiece Theater" and many fine children's programs all deserve our support. Thank you.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:27 AM	Not A Texan By Choice : Your comment on Public television would be more at home coming from Fox, the leader of mass media in charge of dumbing down of America right after No Child Left Behind.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:26 AM	Billk : I wholeheartedly agree with the vast majority of comments. PBS is a treasure, commercial TV is trash. McGrath's statement that viewership is way down, however is troubling and I hope the PBS leadership is working to reverse that. Other than sports and local weather and news in the morning (car crashes, crime, ad nauseum) I watch PBS exclusively and would likely only use my TV for a video/DVD player if PBS went off the air.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:26 AM	lillian m. jeskey-lubag : To call the tone of Mr. McGrath's comments re: PBS (2/17/08) arrogant is to be kind. To make mention of Jim Lehrer's age as anywhere near pertinent to the excellence of "The News Hour" is to engage in ageism. To suggest that Masterpiece Theatre is passe is to ignore the stunning performances of Helen Mirren. To claim that the fundraising episodes are akin to "waterboarding" is cruel and not mildly humourous! What I will agree with is that "Are You Being Served" and Hyacinth Bouquet are definitely disposable. To suggest PBS' extending the time of corporate sponsorship credits is at all comparable to the inane and nauseatingly frequent commercials urging citizens to bombard their personal physicians with requests for the latest in medications replete with possible side effects that seem to surpass the actual ailment is not even worth a mention! And finally, with regard to the abundant availability of competing channels thanks to the emergence of cable, abundance does not equate with quality. The Tudors aside, the daily lineup is a plethora of reality shows, talk shows aspiring to ameliorate every possible psychological ailment and, oh, let's not forget the channels that would allow us to shop non-stop! Can these compete with Bill Moyers? I think not.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:15 AM	Paul : I have to say I'm quite surprised by Charles McGrath's article. In this current climate where daily printed newspapers are in sharp decline, where the cynical irony in Fox News Channel's name and slogan goes unchallenged and where even my parent's nightly network news broadcasts have devolved into 15 minutes of entertainment interspersed between 15 minutes of drug company commercials, in this climate where journalistic integrity and high standards are the exception rather than the rule, clearly PBS, and especially the News Hour are now more important than ever - not less.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 07:00 AM	Dorothy Hanning : The proposed reduction of the federal subsidy for public broadcasting is another example of the Bush Administration's harsh treatment aimed at low income Americans. Besides, the Times' reporter got it sooooo wrong - the glory days of public television is now. PBS continues its consistently high quality programming, i.e., Newshour, Frontline, American Experience, Great Performances, Masterpiece Experience, Sesame Street, NOW, Washington Week, Bill Moyers Journal, British comedy, etc.,etc.,etc. I agree with Marcia who agrees with Theresa: "Get rid of PBS and I get rid of my TV".

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:46 AM	Joan Winslow : A republican and democrat live in this house and Jim Lehrer is the one program we never miss on TV. This program gives balanced reports that inform and please us both. Our retired friends would be bereft if something should happen to this staple in our lives. The reporters are skillful, asking important questions; how could such a serendipious combination of people searching for the core of problems be missed. Remember whom both side choose to moderate, nationally. Dr. Winslow and myself urgently urge this national treasure be recognized. Joan Winslow

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:44 AM	Neil Sheehan : List me as a strong supporter of PBS. PBS is easily my favorite and most watched channel. My wife and I have financially supported our local PBS station for over 20 years.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:41 AM	Barbara Weiss : I am a health care professional and a former Peace Corps Volunteer. I do not have cable and virtually the only station I watch is PBS. I can’t imagine life without the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; it has been a fixture in our family all the way back to the Robin McNeil days. Jim is the quintessential professional, providing news and analysis of a high caliber. My life has been enriched by all the programs on PBS, particularly the Nightly Business Report, Frontline, NOW with Bill Moyers, countless documentaries, and BBC news/programs. Don’t be discouraged by foolish comments in the NY Times article. PBS is a treasure that I hope we fight to keep.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:37 AM	James Brotherton : By every measure, it is the best that TV has to offer.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:34 AM	windhover : I live in Australia and I watch the Newshour every week night, and I think it's the most balanced, reasoned news program that I have ever seen. Nobody rants and raves. People have their turn to speak. Both sides of the question are examined. This show alone must make PBS worth keeping. I have grown up watching commercial free TV with the ABC in Australia and the BBC when I lived in England. How one could exist with only commercial TV is beyond my comprehension.Imagine the Newshour interupted every five minutes with shrill,mind-numbing commercials. Hang in there and support your Public Broadcasting Service. Also I wish you luck in getting some sort of universal health scheme. Most of the rest of the civilised world has one. I hope you join us soon. Windhover

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:27 AM	j mayhew : how would we ever hear the truth about anything, were it not for PBS ???

Posted: 02/21/08 at 06:18 AM	Elizabeth Harger : Some of us neither have nor want cable or satellite television. Funding for PBS costs the taxpayer pennies. So yes, PBS is still necessary for a balanced view not connected to commercial programming.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:46 AM	Tom Andersen : PBS serves only a small part of the population. With the "dumbing down" of the population, quality, comprehensive, and excellent coverage such as the Jim Lehrer New Hour is in low demand. Most people want entertainment in their news, and to be stimulated by crass sleazy sensationalist stories that have little real relevance to stories with true impact.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:27 AM	Bob C : PBS programming is ABSOLUTELY THE BEST. I rely almost entirely on PBS news and other broadcasts, especially Frontline and American Experience, to get the news and information about interesting topics and current events. C-span and NPR and my only two other "reliable" sources. Thank you very much for your good work. Don't let those that would, suggest that public PBS and NPR are not valuable and relevant. They are, now more than ever.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 05:10 AM	Richard Lee Dechert : In answering his provocative question, Is PBS Still Necessary?, Charles McGrath repeats many of the cable TV and other bogus cliches we've heard since the "zero out" PBS (and NPR) days of Newt Gingrich; doesn't mention that Congress is now controlled by friendly Democrats; frames PBS as only a provider of primetime programs and not as a provider of other vital services to 355 local stations; apparently doesn't watch or value the highly diverse array of cultural, educational, historical, and other national or local public TV programs; may not be aware that many of them also have Internet feeds; doesn't rely on their community-based outreach services; likely hasn't explored the superb, increasingly used PBS and WNET Web sites; probably knows very little about public TV's far superior use of new digital multicasting; apparently hasn't reviewed the positive national opinion polls on the merits of public television; and unlike Morning Edition or All Things Considered, has a difficult time watching the NewsHour, Bill Moyers Journal, or NOW on PBS while he's driving to and from work. However, McGrath is right about television's much higher operating costs, the chronic need for more non-commercial PBS funding, and the puzzling failure to capitalize on Joan Kroc's offer. But has he ever supported an independent public-broadcasting trust fund or any of the Congressional bills to create one--especially at a time when federal auctioning of the public's airwaves is making billions of dollars available? And in that regard what are the PBS and Corporation for Public Broadcasting boards effectively doing, along with public TV lobby groups, to exploit this "once in a lifetime" opportunity? McGrath is also right about having a daily PBS news program that goes beyond the usual mainstream, inside-the-D.C.-beltway focus of the NewsHour and its conventional wisdom hosts, although he doesn't use that exact language. Still, the NewsHour is no worse than Morning Edition and All Things Considered in virtually ignoring the gross illegality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq and its blatant violation of the Article VI "supremacy clause" of the U.S. Constitution. That should be the next McGrath editorial. Richard Lee Dechert Maplewood, Minnesota A retired longtime staffer at Twin Cities Public Television

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:44 AM	Elizabeth Graham : On 2/19 I tried to post my comment expressing support for the Newshour, virtually the only tv news I watch, and was told I'd submitted too many comments. Since it was the first time I'd visited the website, let alone sent a message, I was frustrated and disappointed, but let me try to say it again: I'm a longtime and loyal viewer who values the high quality of the program and absence of trivia and commercials

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:24 AM	MeferMike : I wish I could give PBS my total support, but it’s not, in my estimation, what it should be. A few of us must still remember what public television was before the National Educational Television (NET) network was decapitated under political pressure and the Ford Foundation in the late ‘60’s. NET consisted of a federation of local and regional affiliates with strong grassroots ties; synergies between the larger centers of production allowed locally inspired product to reach a national audience through the central network. As the Wikipedia article on the NET has it, “Under the centerpiece show NET Journal, NET began to air controversial, hard-hitting documentaries that explored numerous social issues of the day such as poverty and racism. While praised by critics, many affiliates, especially those in politically and culturally conservative markets, objected to the perceived liberal slant of the programming.” NET was replaced by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in 1967, eliminating a truly alternative source of television programming with a top-down ‘politically corrected’ superstructure that has played political football with public television ever since. The PBS I have today in my region is a certifiable schizophrenic. On tonight’s schedule, the News Hour is followed by American Ballroom, which is followed by Charlie Rose at 11 pm. Wow_ want some tornadoes with your tacos. It’s an incredible mishmash: a resurrected Lawrence Welk on Saturdays and Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now” at midnight. Wouldn’t Fox, CNN, CBS and the rest of the alphabet soup just die for a ‘look’ like that. Let’s not cut funding for CPB, let’s do a Marshall Plan for public television and give the commercial networks a healthy run for their money, something to contrast with their insipid, intellectually insulting, add-driven fare. People don’t want to just be ‘entertained’, they also want to be enabled, empowered, made more capable, better able to discern the world about them. For example, how much technical wizardry would it take to show young minds seeking career ideas and avenues into adult life what the world of work looks like from inside, with people who know how to do something, who can say why they chose to do it, what training they needed to do it and what they would do differently if the had to do it over again. My 86 year old mother won’t miss an episode of the PBS program This Old House. And, I’m right next to her. When it’s over, we look around us and appreciate the materials, the know-how and the effort that is invested in the house we live in and don’t even notice. How to do things, how to participate in civic life: that’s what PBS can do. If I were an Evil Empire wanting to give the US a kick in the teeth, I wouldn’t buy bombs, or missiles, or poison: I’d invest in advertising agencies who know how to turn perfectly healthy people into nacho and Coke sucking couch potatoes with minds down-sized for negotiating the emotive demands of Big Brother 9.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 04:08 AM	Steve Palmberg : Do without the News Hour, Bill Moyers, Nova and Washington Week? Watch more inane situation comedys so unfunny that they have to use recorded laughter? Rediculous!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:58 AM	George Hinman : PBS is essential to quality television broadcasting. The News Hour and Frontline (and C-Span) are examples of the best sources for reliable news in depth. Masterpiece Theater, Nova, Ken Burns, and Nature are the kinds of programs that are worth watching. Most of the programming on commercial stations, like American Idol, is fatuous pap. We would be satisfied with about ten stations rather than the hundred we have available if we could choose the ten. PBS stations would all be included.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:56 AM	Bill : We have watched with dismay as the Orwellian Bush/Rove team on the CPB Board has systematically degraded the public broadcasting programming in an attempt to destroy any opposition to their own political agenda. PBS now bends over backward to avoid controversy, or anything that could be remotely construed as criticism of corporations or of the Republican party. Please use the ballot box to take back this small portion of the airwaves.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:55 AM	Cynthia Derr : Perhaps if President Bush had watched PBS rather than trying to eliminate its funding, we might have avoided the Iraq war, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars. I watch PBS almost exclusively and listen to public radio. Both are a factual anchor in a spin-world of commercialism. I have yet to see shows of News Hour, Charlie Rose, Frontline, or Independent Lens quality on commercial TV. And of course, there's Curious George, one of the best animated shows for kids that I've seen.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:48 AM	Lord Byron : McGrath is, to put it bluntly, and idiot. The Times that I loved is gone, and this article is but one example of the paper's sad decline. Jim Lehrer is a rare commodity; his intelligence, his respect for his interviewees, his heart ... all these and more come through in his work. We need more journalists like him and his team and fewer like Chris Matthews and Anderson Cooper. When the Lehrer team expires, so to speak, I hope I am also gone. I have often thought that a day without Jim is a day not worth living ... something I share with Eudora Welty. (Though I am currently working in Abu Dhabi, I watch via the Internet.) Long Live Jim!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:47 AM	Audrey Byrd : Don't want to have to live without PBS and ALL it offers us! We, as individuals and as a nation need PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:40 AM	Len and Lorraine Kovar : We LOVE PBS! We watch the Newshour every night because we know we will be getting the real and the unbiased news. We look forward to Bill Moyers and feel he is doing our country a real service. We enjoy the nature programs and so many other programs. We watch PBS more than any other channel!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:37 AM	Mary-Helen : How can anyone glean any real understanding of national or global issues without the Newshour (and Washington Week)? I've been a dedicated watcher of the Newshour for 2 decades, and a financial supporter as well. Occasionally I troll the networks, CNN and msnbc if I'm still hungry for details on a particularly important event. I'm repeatedly dismayed by the opinionated, agressive, impolite tone which prevails on most of these sources. I rarely listed for more than a few minutes. And now that I can have replays of the Newshour "ON DEMAND" through comcast and the Newshour on NPR/KUED, I have even less reason to put up with objectionable aspects of alternative sources. Jim, Margaret, Gwen, Judy, Ray, Jeffrey...Where would we be without you? I'd have lost my sanity during the nasty questioning of Bill Clinton; I'd have stopped paying taxes when Bush sent our troups to Iraq; I'd have stopped traveling abroad for shame in my country after Abu Graib. So many reasons to insist on quality news reports from journalists we trust. I only wish I had more money to contribute to PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:30 AM	marge poole : The ONLY source of interesting and challenging programs on television. Let's all hope that our citizens will realize the real worth of having such a station available to enrich our knowledge and lives.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:20 AM	Tezmo King : The NYT article is mostly a push towards NPR radio ...but only while driving! The article is on target here. NPR is a comparative oasis of intelligence in an otherwise barren landscape of radio airwaves. The writer makes no real case against PBS and would have done well to compare PBS TV with some other TV that he thinks is better. He does however appear to make an early case against the current administration who appear to have little or no regard for PBS. Most of us are aware that there are other TV choices than PBS, but try searching television for a classical music concert, a sensible children's program, an in-depth political update, an intelligent science and technology program or a detailed news analysis. Aside from PBS and a handful of other good channels, the spectrum of television is far more bleak than that of radio. Network news programs are trite and shallow at best, preferring to headline stories of lost poodles and celebrity melt-downs in favor of concurrent and significant political, legal or educational events. I'll take PBS anytime; give me NOVA, Frontline, American Masters, the News hour and all the fabulous live concerts and music programs. Programs that the Networks would never air for fear of reduced viewer volume and the risk of losing sponsor dollars.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:16 AM	marv : PBS allows me to turn on TV and not be insulted by gratuitous violence, sex, inane "comedy", sports coverage in the extreme, obnoxious commercials . . .

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:14 AM	David Vickery : Contrary to what Mr. McGrath claims in his article, I have yet to see anything in the cable channels or the networks that comes anywhere close to replacing The Newshour, Charlie Rose, Nova, Great Performances, Frontline, Washington Week, etc.. If PBS ceased broadcasting tomorrow I would cancel my television service and only use the TV for watching DVDs. Without PBS, watching television would be a useless waste of Life!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:13 AM	Mike : PBS sets the highest standards in community and public programming. It's the only network that helps keep my sanity. And the journalism of the Newshour with Jim Lehrer is the true definition of "Fair and Balanced" reporting. NYT, what were you thinking?? Maybe collegial rivalary?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:11 AM	David Vickery : Contrary to what Mr. McGrath claims in his article, I have yet to see anything in the cable channels or the networks that comes anywhere close to replacing The Newshour, Charlie Rose, Nova, Great Performances, Frontline, etc.. If PBS ceased broadcasting tomorrow I would cancel my television service and only use the TV for watching DVDs. Without PBS, watching television would be a useless waste of Life!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:08 AM	jim hemsley : greetings from australia . i agree "news hour " is essential in this time of conflict . along with the similar network here in aus. the s.b.s network. may i quote the poet T.GRAY in relation to and specificaly FOR all those who question the value of public media .... "Alas ! regardless of their doom , The little victims play ; No sense have they of ills to come , Nor care beyond today ;" ..... etc.etc A world without free media is not a good choice , for anyone . peace and love to all jim .

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:07 AM	ExPat in Australia : As an American living abroad in Australia, I can not tell you how thrilled I was to see that my favorite news program from home is broadcast here. SBS broadcasts the News Hour along with many other news programs from around the world– the only suggestion that I have is that Public TV in the US do the same and broadcast news programs from around the world. The News Hour continues to be relevant in US and abroad.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 03:04 AM	anguss : My wife and I give every year to PBS because we know they are vital; as are NPR stations who we also support. The only critizism I have is the recent trend of Corp. supporters that are wrongfully allowed to air propaganda spots rather than simply the acknowledgement of their support. Frontline in my estimation is the most courageous of the regular PBS programs. "NOW" has grown a bit lame perhaps. While I don't always agree with Charlie Rose ( I wish he would shut up so we can listen to the guest) it's obvious that he leans 'right', s'ok, still like him. Actually, since the new (rightwing) appointments of oversight commitee chair (?) the whole station has been leaning more to the right. Yup, even PBS got Bush-wacked...but it's still the most honest voice on the airwaves that belong to the people, not to corporations and their greed driven agendas. Speaking of fair and balanced;) once, just once, I'd like to see a program that delves into the dues of liberty. Individuals and especially parents need to own up to our responsibilty as citizens; to reach out for knowledge, self discipline and respect of others as well as ourselves. We demand by law that people pass tests to drive cars but somehow it is not deemed necessary to educate ourselves for the burdens and duties of parenting or citizens. Sorry, got off on a tangent there, my point is that it is likely that only PBS could do justice to a delicate yet essential public discourse such as this. There's good reason why our Founders made Freedom of Speech the first amendment, all other freedoms flow from that necessity. ps...money ain't speech, despite what our Subprime Court inJustices say. ;)

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:54 AM	Lee C. Kanner Pseudonym: LeeCK : The New Hour, Frontline, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, Now, and many more PBS programs are unrivaled elsewhere on TV. I feel the outrage that your many responders have already expressed at the suggestion that the glib, superficial coverage of public affairs presented on cable channels outclasses PBS. I do agree that Masterpiece Theatre and other arts programs are in dire need of resuscitation. Public television needs more money, not less.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:48 AM	Angie Ewing : We need you, we want you, we MUST have you! Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill are rock stars in our house. While we are as old as Jim, we still climb mountains and are not at all ready for assisted living. We are passionately interested in domestic and foreign affairs and only you give us a balanced picture. Bravo and thank you. Keep it up please.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:44 AM	Pam'laAnne : Yes, Public Broadcasting is relevant. Very little else is. The only reason I keep a television is to watch The Lehrer News Hour, Washington Week in Review with Gwen Ifill, Bill Moyer’s Journal and Moyers on any topic, Charlie Rose, NOVA, NOVA ScienceNOW, Tavis Smiley, Frontline, Programs like Islam: Empire of Faith, Muhammad Legacy of a Prophet, The Mormons The Jewish Americans, and Austin City Limits. Even reruns of Masterpiece Theater are far superior to new programs and reruns on other channels. Only on Public Broadcasting can one hear balanced news and, with one exception, analysis free of sensationalism and yelling. The inflammatory nature of news programs on commercial networks leaves CSPAN as the only other option. I am an avid NPR listener.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:43 AM	Sherry in Crockett : I check four TV channels a day in the newspaper, all PBS. Occasionally I'll watch two or three other channels, but with no PBS I'd not pay the cable company sixty bucks a month for the privilege of snow-free reception. From 3 to 4 every afternoon friends know not to phone, because I'm listening to Jim, Gwen, Ray, Paul, Jeff, Judy, et al -- appreciating no commercial interruptions, which drive me from other news sources. At night it's Masterpiece's Jane Austen lately, and always a check-in with Charlie Rose. I contribute financially but think that the government should give more support than goes to much less worthy and helpful endeavors.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:39 AM	Dave quinn : There's another point of which we should all be aware. PBS, in all its forms, is free competition to the New York Times. Superior in many aspects. I guess you would find it hard to take share from someone who obstinately provides a free service better than the one that you have to charge for.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:38 AM	Cynthea : It terrifies me to contemplate a world without the unbiased truth telling shows that are aired on PBS. What other source do we really have that is not compromised by money or politics where we can get rational, comprehensive coverage of what we as Americans need to know in order to make intelligent decisions and participate in a democratic society? I watch the News Hour, Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose, Nova, Frontline, McLaughlin Group, Washington Week, and many others regularly. Honestly, I don't know what I'd do without them. I couldn't bear it if I had to go through life watching the idiocy that airs on the other channels. Even Keeping Up Appearances is delightfully funny once you understand the nuances of it. These are not superficial shows. They are for the thinking population. Let the rest of America follow the rollar coaster that is Brittney Spears et all but please leave me my PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:36 AM	Joan : I am an American living in Australia. We recently installed a satellite to access CNN, etc. but my primary source of in-depth news coverage remains the News Hour. Its exceptional breadth of subject matter, and the balanced "team" approach to exploring issues (insuring that at least two opposing points of view are represented) give me so much more confidence that I am getting the information I need to have a valid opinion about the critical issues of the day. Our friends here in Australia are amazed at the Newshour's format - nothing in Australia offers the same diversity. I sincerely hope that the value of the Newshour's contribution to our understanding of current political challenges is recognized and applauded - not decried and threatened. Sincerely, Joan Seymour, Adelaide, South Australia

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:35 AM	Lenny B. : Is PBS still needed is a silly question. All other newscast on the Commercial stations are limited in their so called freedom by their commercial interest. If Chevron is their largest advertiser than try as they may they cannot be neutral. Thus complaining about the large tax benefits the oil industry, rightly or wrongly, receives, will be reported without losing sight of the advertising revenue being received from the oil industry in this example Chevron. This can be done very subtly by presenting both sides, but being very choosy who presents what side. That could be done by appearance, demeanor, debating skills or by simply demonizing the less favored side. A daily happening on the commercial stations. With the PBS newshour all sides of an issue are open for discussion with neary a commercial angle. As a matter of fact when watching a commercial station i very often ask myself why doesn't the reporter ask that question. Well we most of the time can figure this out very easily for yourself. It is de facto self-censorship we just don't call it that!! With PBS i always walk away feeling that i have just asked all the questions i would like, AND got the answer instead of a political semantic slight of hand. So to wrap it up. We need PBS news hour more than ever. Not to mention the music and other cultural programs that will NEVER EVER appear on commercial stations because of the ratings game! Stay strong, and remember Slime is the Agony of water!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:32 AM	Randall Wilde : I rely upon PBS and NPR almost exclusively for trustworthy news, reliable information, intelligent discussions, worthwhile drama, subtle comedy, and quality movies. While I enjoy some of the columns from the New York Times that are reprinted in a local newspaper, I would rather do without the New York Times than do without KQED-TV or KQED-FM. I do break away from time to time for Country or Classical Music. If I could only have one television channel, it would be KQED!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:29 AM	OZ Watcher : In Australia, I watch the News Hour most afternoons. It is an excellent means of keeping up to date with what's happening in the US.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:26 AM	Janice : PBS is absolutely necessary! Where else can we escape from "reality" programming and enjoy what we watch at the same time. CNN, Fox News, et al. more opinion than news. We need The NewsHour, Charlie Rose, Tavis Smiley, Religion and Ethics News Weekly and our local programming to count on for balanced news coverage. We need more programs like Washington Week, Now and Bill Moyers Journal.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:23 AM	Elinor Stone : Not only does PBS have superior news programs, but they act as the standard for all the others. The network news programs all sound like the same (AP) news line. Seldom any depth. But the Lehrer show does keep them honest. It's a valuable part of my day. Thank you, PBS

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:22 AM	Ian : I stopped watching cable news as it is just who can talk the loudest. I appreciate the NewsHour as I get actual news, and views. I support PBS, and am glad to support the NewsHour.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:21 AM	bobmulv : If we lose the Newshour, I would probably stop watching the news on TV. I can't stomach all those talking heads on CNN, FOX and the networks. I hate the heart warming stories. I need substance, a good moderator and some true experts that have a steak in the issues. Also, there are no other programs like Frontline and Nova out there that have information of that high standard. I have 100 channels of cable but still choose PBS for a lot of my viewing. That says a lot to me. We can fund bridges to nowhere but somehow we need to tighten or belts around public television. It just proves to me that private interest always trump pubic interests. I hate to be so cynical.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:21 AM	Kay : We depend on PBS for in-depth coverage and analysis. New Hour, Washington Week, Bill Moyers, Now, Frontline, Nova - these shows consistently provide much more than soundbites and teasers. The reports are informed, presentations are balanced, sources are independent, and coverage includes a broad range subjects and issues. The specials are wonderful, the mysteries can be fun, Nightly Business is a must. PBS is the publicly funded entity that just keeps on giving. If only our government knew how to use the rest of our money so well.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:21 AM	Ross Christie : Jim, the news hour program provides Australian viewers access via our government cultural affairs tv station SBS. Access to the thoughts and ambitions of American citizens the openness and conveyance balanced commentary is enjoyed by many families down under.Unfortunately we have no access to your extended broardcasting system. Congratulations on the good work and to your team of reporters. cooie mate from one aussie farmer in the state of New South Wales.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:18 AM	akam : Public television has, indeed,low-quality programs. I watch the News Hour every night, for Jim Lehrer. The News Hour should discontinue its usually whiney "essays." and stick to hard news and educating the public about the economy, environment, etc.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:17 AM	PF Johnson : I agree with all the kind things that have been said about the News Hour. However, it would be nice to see more of Robert MacNeil.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:16 AM	Irma Silverstein : PBS is an essential outlet for news and other information of importance. The News Hour gives us balanced and in-depth reporting that is not available on other stations. In addition to the News Hour, I value the nature presentations, the childrens programming, Charlie Rose and the interesting and varied people he interviews, Bill Moyers and the provocative issues he studies, the Classic Arts features, the occasional telecasts of Live from Lincoln Center, other classical concerts and operas, Masterpiece Theatre, and so much more. PBS is the only outlet for cultural presentations which I have found.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:15 AM	Eve Carroll : I believe that public broadcasting is a covenant that a government makes with its citizens. This availability of a balanced thoughtful programing is one of the reasons I am most proud to be an American.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:15 AM	David : The Newshour is a wonderful lens on public life in the US for people like me. I live in Canberra, capital of Australia and the Newshour is broadcast at 5pm each day on our national Special Broadcasting Service. I find it balanced, sometimes even excessively. It focuses in the important national issues, both in the US and throughout the world. It doesn't waste time on trivia as do the other broadcasting services, such as CNN. The format is excellent - the large number of debates allow issues to be treated in greater depth than on other news services. Your reporters are balanced and knowledgeable. The guests, also, are very knowledgeable - from political issues to wonderful explanations of decisions of your Supreme Court and even science. If nothing else this program provides a wonderful window on civic life in America to those of us around the world who see America as still a key player in world events. Those of us who watch Newshour ubdoubtedly influence politicians in our own countries in their attitudes to America. It would be a pity to lose this excellent show.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:14 AM	Ken L : PBS news and programming is the only reliably quality TV programming available in the US. The News Hour, Frontline, and Nova are excellent and objective. In an age when news sources such as the Times sadly failed to properly cover the Iraq war, PBS was honest and unbiased. Long live PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:13 AM	Herbert Potts : I have two subscriptions to the highest level of cable television available in San Francisco. There are only two networks and one additional program which I feel are indispensible: CNBC-financial, PBS, and "Pinky and the Brain".

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:13 AM	Ray Trimble : I'll admit I don't watch as many PBS programs as I used to, but I do record the News Hour on my DVR and always watch most if not all of it. Even though we have both cable and satellite I have not found anything close to the depth of analysis I can count on from the News hour. I also record (and always watch) Inside Washington, Washington Week, and the McLaughlin Group, though I can't claim they are indispensable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:13 AM	Genevieve Gough : I'm Australian, and need an unbiased view of American politics. I've been watching for more than I can remember. I also note that Jim hasn't aged at all!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:11 AM	Ray : Public broadcasting in the United States is as old as broadcasting itself. The destruction of the fairness doctrian has made the need more sever. The question should be is some of the other stations be gone not based on need but because the bar is low enough.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:04 AM	Peter Downie : PBS must be preserved at all costs. I am an Australian, living in Australia, and I try to watch Newshour every day. I visit the US yearly, and have great respect for your culture and rich history, but deplore how your government has been hijacked by people like Bush, Cheney, Rice, etc. Without PBS the news would be betrayed into the hands of big business and stolen from the people. Live on, PBS!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:03 AM	Daniel : The News Hour on PBS is an excellent program. It shows tremendous respect to its audience and is willing to at least try to show two points of view on a news story.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:02 AM	simm123 : Are you nuts? PBS not nec? are you nuts? Obviously, somebody is not "thinking". If you want the real and whole picture of what is really happening, go to PBS. There is the entire story/news that other channels are not giving us. thank gosh for PBS. Are you nuts? I am a nurse and a single mom, work two jobs and appreciate good news without clebrity news of addiction and issues. I appreciate good information!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:02 AM	Jil Chapman : As an Australian we rely on free to air national television for most of the interational news. The Jim Leher news hour is the only US TV news for this information. Please keep up the good work. As an age pendioner I can't afford cable etc and many other Australians rely on pbs for American news & comment.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:01 AM	Robert Knott : It is hard for me to watch most news because I can see the slant in the presentation Your news program contains no slant in either direction No wonder there are forces hostile towards public television, especially the news programs like Fronltine and News Hour They don't promote an agenda Th science and nature programs keep me entertained and show me that there is more to the world than what I percieve myself

Posted: 02/21/08 at 02:01 AM	downunder : we in australia get the newshour via sbs public television it is a rich informative current affairs programme which gives us a detailed insight to the machinations of america well done keep going pbs

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:53 AM	Gary : The news hour on PBS is my main source for news. It doesn't overload me with sensationalism like the networks. I'm also enjoying their election coverage very much. I appreciate how it goes in depth into stories with analysis from differing perspectives.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:49 AM	John Hamilton : A better question is this: Is the New York Times still necessary? The paper has given propaganda support to the Bush criminal regime repeatedly over the last seven years, and is credible only with the gullible and the corrupt. "All the news that's fit to print" is the paper's motto. It all depends on what is meant by "fitness." For myself, I watch public television almost exclusively. When I venture to network TV I get slimed. Having worked in the cable industry, I will not pay for more c*#p, so PBS is it. It may not be all the TV that's fit to watch, but it's about 90% of it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:48 AM	Dave Quinn : I'm a Republican. I remember last decade when the Republicans were venting about PBS having a "Liberal" bent. That got me to review a broad variety of news sources in our society. The only conclusion, that I could reasonably arrive at, was those who complained the most vociferously, were those who benefited the least from the truth. Let's keep the light of day! The publics station is our most identifiable point in our society's Freedom of the Press. Perhaps our last hope for truth in a world lost in the morbid blindness of baseless accusation and conjecture.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:45 AM	Nancy Donaven : PBS is what I watch more than anything else. BBC is good too but PBS is definitely still relevant.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:44 AM	Deborah Klingbeil : I love PBS, especially Bill Moyers and the Newshour. I find it very relevent to my daily life and can't imagine anyone calling it irrelevent.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:43 AM	Mary : I'm writing in response to The New York Times article questioning the relevance of programing on PBS. The network is my main source of information and entertainment on television. I greatly appreciate the thoroughness and informative nature of the news programs like The News Hour, Washington Week and Bill Moyers Journal as well as such feature coverage as Frontline and American Experience. The absence of repeated commercial breaks is also greatly appreciated. The New York Times article makes it appear that all television viewers have access to cable channels. Many of us do not. PBS provides an in depth look at issues that can not be found on the channels in my area. NPR and PBS are my main sources of information about the world and I would greatly miss them if they weren't here for us.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:42 AM	Scott Bayles : Is PBS still relevant? Is a voice of reason necessary in examining domestic and international affairs? I hate being late to the debate, but I'm pretty certain that the "lost viewers" over whom the networks mourn can be found in large numbers watching The News Hour, Nova, Masterpiece Theatre, Mystery! and many other of the expertly produced shows that air on PBS stations. We are dedicated viewers, listeners, and supporters of PBS and NPR stations in our broadcast area. Like Karl Malden used to say in the old American Express card TV spots, "Don't leave home without it."

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:41 AM	R Hampson : We support public radio and TV and think there are thousands like us who are generally not outspoken, but WE ARE HERE!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:41 AM	Robert Lester : If public television did not exist, my family would not watch television. The programming is always vastly superior to most network and cable fare. The News Hour, Charlie Rose, Inside Washington and Bill Moyers give depth coverage, as opposed to the ranting and raving of the Cable stuff. Recently, I had to endure Fox News in the waiting room of my doctor's office. There were much more preening and posturing than news and the commercials were extremely irritating. I left the office thanking our country for PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:40 AM	Deborah Klingbeil : Greetings from Racine Wisconsin. I love the New York Times and have read it for years, but they got it wrong this time. How can anyone think that PBS is irrelevent? The newshour is an anchor in my understanding of the world around me. It gives a different view than newspapers, presents subjects I probably wouldn't select to read in the paper but that I find interesting, does not have commercials, and is not geared to entertainment the way so much of the cable news is. It also seems to me that the Newshour has more analysis than cable news. I love PBS - and I find it very relevent to my daily life, my thinking, and my actions. Thank you PBS for all you do.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:39 AM	Alan : Simply put... there isn't any other national television resource in America for unbiased responsible journalism and intelligent thoughtful programming. Period. I can't (don't care to) imagine a world without it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:38 AM	Ligi Kelsey : My husband and I watch Jim Lehrer EVERY night. I have lost confidence in ordinary media news where you get spin and half truths. We need a free and independent press if we are to maintain a democracy, a press that holds the government accountable and is not afraid to speak the truth. We need to hear all the news, good and bad. In the Lehrer news we hear good discussions, many views from many interesting people, and the truth. We watch NOW and BILL MOYERS without fail, music, drama, and nature. When our children were small they watched all the wonderful shows for children. As far as we are concerned much of regular televison appeals to the lowest common denominator, nothing of substance. We love PBS and would be lost without it. Irrelevant?? NEVER!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:36 AM	peter : I watch pbs almost everyday and I listen to it on the web. We need not-for-profit news organizations. With people who don't get more money according to ratings/circulation. They just concern themselves with doing their very best and bring us their very best.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:34 AM	Gomush : The News Hour leans so far left I am afraid that it will fall off the screen one of these days.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:32 AM	MP : I stopped watching network news a few years ago. I could no longer stand all of the commercials for pharmaceuticals. The NewsHour is an hour of real and balanced news- not the network news anchor wanting me to see their empathy with the latest victim of the week. In fact most of the television I watch is PBS, and you can't tell me that Frontline is not relevant. Shame on the NYTimes- Jane Austin forever!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:32 AM	Jack Konner : Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, The News Hour, Bill Moyer - I could go on and on. There's nothing like it on the networks. And as for cable - don't make me sick!!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:31 AM	Gary Kern : It is sad to see a NY Times writer accepting the wretched standards of the mass media and asking whether PBS can match them. It is like asking whether a thoughtful book can match the excitement of a carnival. The carnival has come to town, with all the lights, carneys and rigged games. We might go, but should we stay? Should the carnival be our one source of news and entertainment? All TV news shows today are an explosion of flashing lights, spinning images, pea-in-the-pod teases for upcoming segments, insufficient information for important events, "in-depth" reporting in the space of one minute, fake backgrounds of flashing TV monitors, splashed blood, jack-in-the box pundits, brainless chatter and contrived sentimentality, broken up and separated by spinning cars, fraudulent commercials and jumping, flashing, spinning self-promotions. The whole point of the carnival is to rivet the attention of the stunned viewer and hold him or her through the segment up to the digitalized assault of commercials; the whole point, in short, is exploitation. Such news is not news but a hostile invasion of sensations, experiences, snippets, slop and insults to the viewer's intelligence. Apparently it works for the majority of people. The question is whether it should work for everyone. I think not. I think a small percentage of the 300 million should be allowed to watch shows that present content, informed commentary, investigative reporting and culturally enriching artistic productions. Is it not in the public interest that some viewers should be informed, or must all be left behind? Unfortunately, even at PBS the influence of the carnival is creeping in. NOVA especially has cut itself down to short segments with spinning and flashing lights repeating the same point over and over again in different words. The transitions between programs have flashing self-promotions with truncated images and spinning car commercials. Happily the News Hour remains the same. Its five-minute news summary equals all the content of the half-hour news shows elsewhere, and then it really goes in depth with expert commentary and discussion. Only C-Span can match it. As for the NYT, if the carnival should be for all, then really is the newspaper of record needed? Isn't it old and stodgy? If Charles McGrath thinks PBS is outdated, and he represents the NYT, then the hive mentality is creeping in there too, and all thoughtful reporting and commentary must go. The outstanding investigative reporting of the Times, which has exposed the abuses at Guantanamo and the human-rights violations of the Bush administration, the independent protection of the nation, must go. What should PBS do to beat the competition? Nothing. Stay as it is, and resist the incentives to flash, spin, hype. What should the NYT do? Stop printing lightheaded appeals to popularity.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:27 AM	David : The News Hour is better than any other video news source and most other news regardless of the media for two reasons: depth and voice. While newspapers can provide more depth on more subjects, many choose to present fluff instead and even more regrettably use biased or inflammatory language. The News Hour does a great job of avoiding these problems. Keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:26 AM	karen : We would not be informed of what is going on in the world, and especially our own country, if it were not for PBS. Anyone who doesn't agree with this comment, doesn't care what is going on worldwide.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:24 AM	Rosanne Reid : I watch the Newshour every night, and agree with many others here that is the best U.S. news program. However, I also watch the B.B.C. news each day, and find their coverage to be far superior to the Newshour. Not only do they have reporters all over the world, and cover many more stories, but they show us what is really happening in the world, not just analyze it. And B.B.C. lacks the pro-America bias and pro-Israel bias that the Newshour consistently shows. I want more coverage of the Palestinian territories which actually shows Israeli actions. Among other PSB shows, Frontline and Independent Lens are my favorites, and absolutely unmatched by other American TV media.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:20 AM	Robin Lang Guzman : The Newshour on PBS has been part of my family's life since 1983 and I can't imagine trying to decipher the complex issues of the world without the insightful, measured, intelligent and unbiased broadcast news provided by Jim Lehrer and his team. In addition, what would we do without Masterpiece Theater, Nova, Scientific American Frontiers, American Masters? The list could go on and on. Why is it that quality programming like this is often deemed unnecessary and yet shows like America's Top Model isn't. Argggg!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:13 AM	Elaine S.. : I read the article in the Times. It is superficial,badly written and not worthy of the space it took up in the paper I use to regard as having no peer. I am not so sure now. I would rather believe that Mr McGrath snuck that in when his editor was out to lunch. Or maybe, the reporter has never watched PBS and believes the stuff he sees on cable is all that it should be. Is it possible that he was so exhausted from watching the latest episode of the Biggest LOser or Glenn Beck rewrites the Ten Commandments that he didn't have the time to research his article. Let me reiterate what others have written on this page. PBS is the best channel on TV in every aspect of what television should provide,but rarely does. I don't know of another channel on TV that has the variety, the substance or the intelligence that I see in the programs PBS offers. Put up or retract your article,Mr. McGrath. If you know of a commercial station that can equal PBS's programming past and present, let us know about it. Write another article in the Times, and this time do a good job.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:11 AM	Thomas T Jones Jr : I am in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates and we get the NewsHour along with NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, and MSNBC. IF. you want two sides to the story, without the political leaning one way or the other - then watch PBS! PBS News Hour is the ONLY true news reporting organization left in the "free media" of the US. I did not read the Times article, but, if it is negative towards PBS then it is obvious the Times is one of the "leaning publications" (notice the lack of NEWS) that both sides of the political spectrum manipulate. In general - the days of Walter Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley are gone, much to the detriment of the population of the USA. Hang in there PBS and keep on trying to do the right thing - despite any outside pressures. Regards/ttjjr

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:11 AM	James : I find it interesting that the NYT would be critical of PBS because it is losing ground to cable. Last time I checked, the credibility of the NYT was not sparkling and it continues to lose readers on an annual basis. That said, I think people should continue to support newspapers because I believe they provide a service to the public. In this vein, I believe PBS provides a service. I would also guess that the author of the article does not have small children. The morning shows on PBS are excellent. It does not help the conversation when jabs are made with regard to particular cable networks (Discovery channel, etc.). If I was to watch those channels (which I don't), there is no need to ever record anything. One just needs to wait two hours and the same show will play again. PBS does not cater to the lowest common denominator. PBS attempts to provide a broad array of shows with less and less money. Sometimes it is not pretty, but let the struggle continue. We'll all be the better for it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:11 AM	Joan Karp : PBS is my constant choice of television programs. News, drama, music, dance, public affairs, history are programs of outstanding merit. Without PBS my television sets would be relegated to the basement.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:10 AM	Thomas Jardine : There is nothing on television as enjoyable as PBS. It is the only station that I watch, In fact, I get all my news there.Listening to the " Jim Legrer News Hour " and " Charlie Rose " is a joy and education. What other TV station offers both sides of a news story in detailed fashion. PBS is as Ameican as apple pie and if some right wing,narrow minded group ever forced its closure,it would be a sad day in the " Land of the free ".

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:07 AM	Corinne : This New York Times article is simply the opinion of Charles McGrath. It is certainly not my opinion nor is it the opinion expressed by the vast majority of PBS viewers who have taken the time to express their views. We need PBS—it is more relevant today than ever. And PBS needs more public funding, not less because it is the only network that answers to its viewers, not advertisers—who now interrupt commercial television programs approximately every 7.5 minutes. As for 'The News Hour', it is by far the best news on television—impartial and in-depth. There are serious problems in our world. 'The News Hour' does a superb job keeping us informed; journalists used to; reporting that Jim Lehrer is 73 does not fall into that category.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:04 AM	Carolyn and Tom Reese : The News Hour is the only news show which reports and analyses news objectively. We watch the New Hour nightly and tape it when we are not at home.We disagree with the New York Times article. Support Public Televison!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:02 AM	Rod Stephens : This is the general gist of the e-mail I just sent to the Editor of the N.Y. Times: I'm just one of the many who want to be added to those who have already commented on your article. I just want to add my voice and vote; we need PBS as an island of content as opposed to the infamous television wasteland. PBS may not be perfect, but we've watched and listened from the early days of its inception, and we've never felt let down. It continues to be the rare gem of information and even entertainment. It may not be perfect, but it stands out in front of the other network, cable and dish offerings as far as being a notch above their thought and content Rod and Shirley Stephens, Redding, California

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:02 AM	Anne Marten : Is PBS necessary? Absolutely in my life! Without PBS, there would be no need for a television in my life. I gave up watching commercial television about 15 years ago and have watched PBS programming almost exclusively ever since. PBS has helped to make me more aware of what is going on in the world I live in and in worlds I will never have the chance to live in but could possibly have an impact on my life. PBS takes me back to places I've been, to places I'd like to go to and to places I may never get to. PBS also explores an endless variety of topics and presents them to me in a way that I can understand. Programs like the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and Washington Week present the news of the world in a fair and balanced manner which helps to keep me informed. PBS is part of my daily life - it's a good friend that I can depend on!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 01:00 AM	nora Frei : I am mostly a radio listener & the programs I value to keep me informed are all on public broadcasting. I love the News Hour as well as Washington Week.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:57 AM	Michael Jefferis : Regular and attentive consumption of PBS and NPR programming will eventually lead to a substantial addition to one's education. A decade of good programming might be worth the first two years of classes at a good college. In contrast, a decade of watching network or cable TV (both pretty much wall-to-wall crap) is much like spending ten years of one's life in a coma. I agree that PBS pledge drives are as bad as water-boarding, and I wish we would all cough up enough money to keep them going for a year WITHOUT corporate plugs. There is good reason to have one-by-one-donation funding: It prevents large funders from biasing the content of programming. NPR and PBS both need more internal competition. There are too few centers of program production, too few executives determining content. Yes, here and there one can find some very stale program ideas. Some of the nature programs have been tedious for a long time. Critics have been complaining about the talking head format for many decades, but for many purposes, intelligent talking heads just can't be improved on. Some people will find Bill Moyers' interviews upsetting, as well they should. Long live PBS, NPR, and CPB.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:57 AM	Frank P : PBS is still relevant to the general public who enjoys professional, unbiased, informative, and comprehensive coverage of news and issues that matter. PBS also offers a variety of programming which are worthwhile and enjoyable to watch for the whole family at anytime. By the way, given the hundreds of wasteful budget earmarks we hear and read about, one would think that NY Times would focus more on those political extravagance instead of questioning the relevance of PBS. But then again, NY Times is not PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:56 AM	L.R. Martinez : PBS is necessary. PBS is (in my opinion) the only channel remaining on television which consistently feeds our society quality programming. Thank you, PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:56 AM	Mike : My wife and I tried Cable TV for 2 years but we often ended up watching public broadcasting-PBS instead. PBS provides intelligent programming and shelter from the din of Cable TV commercials. The News Hour delivers commercial free in-depth and relevant news that is beyond compare with the popcorn fluff that is left on cable and commercial TV after the demise of Ted Koppel’s Nightline. As for the rest of PBS programming, is there anything on commercial TV in the same league as NOVA, Nature, Masterpiece, Frontline, Nightly Business Report, American Experience, Charlie Rose, Washington Week, and so many more? We recently gave up the monthly cable bill for the old roof antenna and found that our three local public TV stations each had digital sub-channels with a wealth of interesting programming. It’s of greater benefit to donate to PBS than pay the cable bill.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:52 AM	streed0 : Perhaps the New York Times should be questioning its own relevance. New York, where's that? Hillary who? Three cheers for PBS and The News Hour. Bill Moyers is a national treasure! On and On it could go. PBS is all about relevance, and I am comforted by their existence as they attempt to communicate at a time when informed people are at an historical low. The questions of relevance raised by the Times are not even serious questions. That's why I am not troubling myself to elaborate much beyond saying: I have cancelled my subscription to that tired old rag. Note: NPR is not better than it used to be, and, Morning Edition is lost after the firing of Bob Edwards. Itskeep is a goofball whose little jokes used as filler asides are low grade and a distraction.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:49 AM	Gus P : News Hour, Frontline, NOVA, American Experience, Ken Burns, Antique Roadshow, Bill Moyers. Still the standards for intelligent, entertaining and informative programming without the full page Calvin underwear ad on page 13.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:48 AM	JJJD : I would be lost without The News Hour. The news is presented intelligently and in depth. The only way we can get unbiased opinions and news is through public broadcasting, especially in todays commercial society. I appreciate many of the shows on PBS that educate and inform me. And finally it is important for the public to fund such high quality programming that is available to everyone.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:47 AM	diana johnsen : PBS is 90% of TV to our family. Keep it up.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:46 AM	pgannie in Pacific Grove, California : What a question!PBS & the NewsHour are needed now more than ever. In a time of sound-bite network newscasts, hot but no light commentary, PBS is an island of sanity, the only place to find intelligent, significant, in-depth discussion & thorough, broad based examination of difficult, complex issues. The only reason we pay >$50/mo for cable is to receive PBS & C-SPANN. That's how important PBS is to us. The NewsHour reporters are the very best in the business. We contribute what we can. Please don't every go away! Thank you.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:45 AM	Harry Cozad : I keep in touch every weekday by watching the PBS Newshour. I only wish that it was on every day. The quality is consistently superb.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:45 AM	roger and family : News Hour is our educated and well-read household's primary source of media news and vital to us. PBS is our primary TV viewing by a longshot. Our only complaint is the longer "ads" pumping upcvoming broadcasts...try to contain yourselves if you can! Thank You.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:45 AM	Kellie Kelso : I get very frightened when I think of a world without PBS. It feels like the only place on television where I can, 1) truly learn more than one side of an issue, 2) learn more than just the "sound bite" of an issue, 3) learn about what's going on around the world, rather than just my back yard, 4) be inspired. I know that's one of PBS's advertisements, but it is true. I do find it to be the only station that consistently inspires and surprises me. Let's just say, if there were no more PBS on TV, I'd go back to just reading books.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:44 AM	James E. Merritt : I and my wife carefully follow the news on a variety of broadcasts and newspapers. We depend upon PBS and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer as a source of relatively in depth news coverage. We wish we had more of it. We also watch other PBS programs which cover current events. It is essential to have some source not controlled by the other media sources. We can not stress too much how important PBS news and the Jim Lehrer hour are to our source of information. It would be devastating to lose them. Jim Merritt and Kris Merritt.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:40 AM	Gordon S : There are no comparisons. The programs of PBS and specifically those related to news and current affairs are far and away beyond anything offered on the airwaves, and the Newshour reigns supreme; superb, quality and unbiased analysis that puts the rest of them to shame.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:40 AM	streed0 : Perhaps the New York Times should be questioning its own relevance. New York, where's that? Hillary who? Three cheers for PBS and The News Hour. Bill Moyers is a national treasure! On and On it could go. PBS is all about relevance, and I am comforted by their existence as they attempt to communicate at a time when informed people are at an historical low. The questions of relevance raised by the Times are not even serious questions. That's why I am not troubling myself to elaborate much beyond saying: I have cancelled my subscription to that tired old rag.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:39 AM	marcia king : The Lehrer NewsHour is my main source of news. It doesn't "talk down" to its listeners and gives me an unbiased report on what is happening around the world. I particularly like the Shields and Brooks segment.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:39 AM	Susan Hull : Gwen Ifill is my new hero. She is an amazing journalist, woman and I so look forward to the weekly Washington Weekly program and her regular contributions on the New Hour. We are just watching her now with Quincy Jones. Awesome...touching and nothing like it!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:37 AM	Christopher : It is surprising to me that the New York Times published "Is PBS Still Necessary" in their February 17th edition. In my opinion, it wasn't at all the caliber of journalism that I usually encounter with the Times. It seemed a little more like a tabloid piece. Charles McGrath's writing in this story really wasn't very good. It seems he has an agenda other than working to further the cause of quality news reporting. The Newshour and Charlie Rose are really the only TV programs I watch. McGrath's piece surprisingly left out Charlie Rose. If such programs appeared on regular television, then I wouldn't care about PBS either. Unfortunately, due to economic realities, quality programs like that can't appear anywhere other than PBS. Is PBS still necessary? Just ask the world famous guests who regularly appear on the Newshour and Charlie Rose.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:36 AM	Miles in Hawai`i : What a question! PBS and NPR are absolutely essential and more necessary than ever given these dark times when so-called “journalists”--the so-called watchdogs of our democracy--have degenerated into the obsequious, sycophantic lapdogs of corporate and governmental interests who are hell-bent on suppressing free, independent thought and keeping us brainwashed and distracted consumers. I’ve got to wonder who is asking this question, and why. — Posted by Miles

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:34 AM	Bob Morris : Absolutely PBS is important, for the same reasons the NYT is relevant and important. I only read about 5% of the NYT (the editorials, Columnists, the Op Eds, the Letters, some of the Blogs, some of the Week in Review, some of the news, the Book Reviews), but I read them regularly and depend on them for information and perspective, for reassurance that there there still are a lot of thinking and feeling people abroad in the land, and, in the case of some of the columnists, humor of the "laugh so you don't have to cry" variety. Similarly, I watch only The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Washington Week in Review, Moyers, Mystery and Masterpiece, probably about 5% of PBS content, but again, I depend on them for information and perspective and, to a lesser extent, provocative and literate entertainment. In particular, the News Hour anchors my day, and that of my wife. At the end of a day at the office, my 70 year old eyes don't have much more reading in them, so PBS is our salvation in the evenings. Our particular demographics may be relatively infrequent, but they are not rare, and when we vote, as we do, we are informed, thanks in significant part to both PBS and the New York Times. I could say much the same of NPR, but that is a different medium, and in our lives at least, does not compete with the NYT or PBS. It would not be an adequate substitute for PBS or intelligent print journalism. Is PBS still "necessary"? What does that mean? Like water, no. Like critical thought, yes. We virtually never watch TV - it doesn't much matter how many cable channels there are - they all depend on paid subscriptions or paid advertising, so they are reduced by and large to the lower common denominators, and if that is what we all come to, then we all will be the worse for it. In that sense, PBS and what it represents at its best are not only relevant, they may be critical to the survival of the Republic. Bob and Suzanne Morris Denver and Eagle, Colorado

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:33 AM	BEllis : Yes,Yes,Yes, PBS, especially the news hour is relevant. It is the only news program that does NEWS! The networks are entertainment!!! We need public television!!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:33 AM	julie marlowe-hesterly : the newshour is my primary and most trusted shot on what's happening. PUHLEEZ CONTINUE Sincerely, j. marlowe-hesterly

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:32 AM	Joe Ulmer : As the only thoughtful oasis in the desert of trash that TV has become, PBS, despite its "mustiness" that you so decry, is the only place to be truly informed and intelligently entertained.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:30 AM	John R Gillis : The Times article did not go nearly far enough in revealing the weaknesses of PBS television, especially in contrast to far more vibrant and relevant Public Radio. Audiences are abandoning PBS because it has failed to keep up with that public's consciousness of foreign and domestic affairs. It failed utterly to anticipate the shift of public sentiment against the war, and its obvious efforts to placate its corporate sponsors is further eroding its support. The so-called "balanced treatment" on the News Hour utterly fails to comprehend the real spectrum of public opinion. Apart from a few programs like Frontline and Moyers there is simply nothing worth watching on most nights. Things get even worse during the intermidable pledge weeks, which are clearly failing. Is it not time to change course, to get rid of the Charlie Roses, Margaret Warners, and Jim Lehrers? Is it not time to catch up the public itself and offer the kind of critical, deeply researched programming that we hear all the time on Public Radio? We know that is possible. Show some professional courage; stop trimming and begin to fulfill your mandate to to meet the needs of a public that is desperate for a revitalization of the nation's civic culture. John R. Gillis

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:29 AM	John R Gillis : The Times article did not go nearly far enough in revealing the weaknesses of PBS television, especially in contrast to far more vibrant and relevant Public Radio. Audiences are abandoning PBS because it has failed to keep up with that public's consciousness of foreign and domestic affairs. It failed utterly to anticipate the shift of public sentiment against the war, and its obvious efforts to placate its corporate sponsors is further eroding its support. The so-called "balanced treatment" on the News Hour utterly fails to comprehend the real spectrum of public opinion. Apart from a few programs like Frontline and Moyers there is simply nothing worth watching on most nights. Things get even worse during the intermidable pledge weeks, which are clearly failing. Is it not time to change course, to get rid of the Charlie Roses, Margaret Warners, and Jim Lehrers? Is it not time to catch up the public itself and offer the kind of critical, deeply researched programming that we hear all the time on Public Radio? We know that is possible. Show some professional courage; stop trimming and begin to fulfill your mandate to to meet the needs of a public that is desperate for a revitalization of the nation's civic culture. John R. Gillis

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:29 AM	Lynne : I appreciate PBS so much and I am offended by The New York Times questioning the validity of PBS programming. As a PBS member I choose to watch a more balanced approach to the news and tasteful programs that probe the issues and problems confronting America and the world. I prefer PBS to some mega media conglomerate making decisions on what I should see. Thanks again PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:28 AM	Anita Manning : are these guys nuts! PBS is the ONLY non-partisan source; you're the only ones I trust keep it up, tell 'em to shove it; go get 'em, etc

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:28 AM	Anita D-G : I agree with the NYT editorialist that too much of what is on PBS is musty, but I still rely on PBS for news that I cannot get anywhere else on television or on the cable that I purchase. I am tired of the lame self-help gurus that are trotted out to help raise money for the local PBS stations. I always turn off the channel during that time though my husband faithfully sends in pledges to PBS as well as to NPR. My family and I have seen all of the British comedies and long for something up to date. However, we watch The Lehrer News Hour religiously, and I have often gone online to read the postings of interviews that impressed me or inflamed me. Frontline is indispensable. When the Discovery Channel buys a film such as Taxi to the Dark Side, promising to show it widely to the public and then executives renege on that promise, where are viewers to go for information censored by big business? PBS is not perfect--but it's the sanest and most balanced billing in a partisan world of broadcasting. PBS needs more money, more support, more creative programming, not less. Independent Lens is good--but whatever happened to shows such as Egg: The Art Show?

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:28 AM	Muriel Enock : As a Victoria (BC) Canadian, for my 'entertainment' I watch only our Knowledge Network and PBS, plus a look at "Daily Planet" on our (Canadian) Discovery channel. I will not interrupt MY viewing for those appalling ads on the 'commercial' channels - my time is more valuable than that, to say nothing of my minimal purse! I used to join KCTS regularly, but have sworn off during most of your Bush-time because 1) I'm appalled at PBS's "The War" series and such persistant old-fashioned warlike attitudes the USA now seems to ardently support (and look at where it got you on '9/11'!); and 2) as an 'oldie', I can't afford anything much besides food & other necessities. I need PBS particularly for the unbiased, helpful, accurate NewsHour and for NOVA - though sadly the funding of the latter seems for a couple of years to have reduced their annual new (ie, 'nova') programming. Come on, government guys! Can't you see that it is through PBS particularly that we get the most ACCURATE view of what goes on in your weird country? ME

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:26 AM	Burtnor : What in the world could the Times have been thinking? PBS is as necessary to public life and to what's left of civil discourse as breathing. The best of PBS is quite simply indispensable, and the filler that substitutes here and there for more nourishing fare can hardly be blamed on an organization deliberately starved of resources. I suppose the author has never thrilled to Great Performances or regularly sat transfixed by the science, nature, art, and film programs, the biographies, the intimate portraits of daily American life, or the in depth reporting found nowhere else. Extraordinary that the Times reporter even questions the value of this programming. It's nearly the only TV worth watching. Every compromise to PBS is our loss. Every threat makes me deeply anxious. What would we do without Frontline, Now, Nova, Nature, Newshour? Unthinkable.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:26 AM	Del : We have relied on PBS for our news, entertainment and high quality shows such as Frontline, Bill Moyers and Now. We can trust their integrity in providing us with other points of view. It is absolutely essential that PBS exists since the other nerworks and cable channels are owned by corporate interests, which may censor what is presented.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:26 AM	Patrick Smiley : My family ONLY watches PBS, mainly The News Hour and Washington Week. I am amazed that the question of PBS's relevancy is even raised!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:25 AM	Carrie : PBS programs, especially the News Hour, are just about the only programs left on TV that are worth watching. Without PBS, I would probably not own a TV.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:24 AM	Frauke : Without PBS TV and Public Radio we are imprisoned by the assault of advertising. The excellent news programs on PBS and its other shows never insult one's intelligence but thoroughly teach and entertain. Truly TV WORTH WATCHING. It must go on and be supported without question!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:24 AM	TedCole : I am 76, retired, still active, thinking and talking, still listening, reading and voting. I have held off commenting believing that most people would comment like me..."PBS is essential, must be retained and adequately funded". So there! I was right. I even sent the article to my family because one must be aware of the thoughts of those who can't or won't see the marvelous value of PBS. And I am happy to see publications of critical comments because I live in the USA where critics as well as supporters are courted and valued. Of course I expected the occasional complainer. No problem if one weighs opinions fairly by volume and substance. I believe most Americans read, view and listen to all sides because we are fair, value thoughtful debate and know our duty to keep in touch with neighbors who think differently. If PBS is pruned, starved or canceled I will shed many tears because my best friend is dying or is dead. In a country that decries using force on its citizens, I will feel forced to spend time finding and jumping around the commercial channels for the kind of programming that I can see on PBS without all that hunting and grunting. Come on America, rise up and thank the media gods for allowing public broadcasting to walk among us but keep the gods aware that once they have allowed us to taste the cuisine of PBS/NPR programming, they better not remove it from our media fare.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:23 AM	Susan and Dan Hull : The only television we enjoy is PBS. The programming appeals to a different set of values than the network TV, and is essential for the sustainability of democracy in our society. It is the only indepedent and objective source of diverse and relavant information. We look forward to the opportunity to be home and to be the whole team on the News Hour, Bill Moyers and NOW, Front Line, INdependent Lens, etc. We too agree that the Time's Article missed the mark!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:21 AM	George Kerr : I have not read the times article. My opinion about PBS was formed many years ago when educational television was limited to PBS. I have used their work to support my own. I have been a science teacher for thirty years. My students have been well served by the tools PBS has provided me. The program format should be expanded to replace so much of the trash that distracts learning.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:21 AM	Frauke : Without PBS TV and Public Radio we are imprisoned by the assault of advertising. The excellent news programs on PBS and its other shows never insult one's intelligence but thoroughly teach and entertain. Truly TV WORTH WATCHING. It must go on and be supported without question!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:19 AM	Rob : We're shocked that anyone would question the value of public television or the support provided by taxpayer dollars. From our perspective, it is the only television worth watching. If we don't find the program on PBS to our liking, we watch a DVD or read. Worth taxpayer support? Darn right it is! Public television provides an invaluable public service and some of the best spent tax dollars in the Federal budget.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:19 AM	Jay beeson : PBS is a American Jewel-- Democracy depends on a Informed people-- Bush and his gang of thugs tried to take over PBS last year by installing one of there thugs as the ceo -- PBS will be pulled off the air over my Dead Body- Ps PBS is in my Will and gets 100% of what I leave- My gift to America -Thanks -

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:19 AM	Pat Coady : PBS "News Hour" program with Jim Leher is one of the few news program that I watch. It combines news and analysis using knowledgeable guests who share background and viewpoints showing two or more perspectives. I come away feeling in-formed rather than receiving "sound bites". The nation needs more informative nightly news programs not less. Given our popular culture of highly status entertainers, spectator sports, sit-com TV and action movies, it is no wonder that some people believe a thoughtful, serious news program is unnecessary. Having lived abroad, the U.S. government often appears to lack knowledge about the rest of the world. In turn, the lack of knowledge about the world hampers our ability to understand what real options we have to make a difference in the world for the good. I fear our past contributions to the betterment of the world may not be repeated in the future as our popular cultures continues to gain the time and attention of a larger percentage of our people.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:18 AM	Betty Stott : PBS & NPR are my and everyone I know who is an intelligent and thoughtful person source for information and stimulating entertainment... not dumb-down like the commerical stations sell. Keep these sources, or the level of intellectual exchange will be violated and our nation will suffer.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:15 AM	nancy o'neil : Living out in the boonies as we do, it is a must to have PBS. Thanks to sattelite tv, I can watch Masterpiece, listen to Shields & Brooks.( Mark & i are from Weymouth, Ma.)and keep up with world events. The wonderful musical programs, Charlie Rose and Tavis are a must for me. Keep tthe wonderful programing coming. Thanks.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:15 AM	Michael Conley : I hardly think Rush Limbaugh would survive on NPR or PBS. Compare him to say, Terry Gross, who conducts thoughtful, smart and sometimes funny interviews with many different people on a variety of subjects and the emphasis in not on what is wrong with the other person's view, rather a platform from which to express without being bullied. Commercial narrative will always have a reason to exist, public airways should always be in the hands of the people. Not to fund our public airways was tried by the Bush administration and failed. Likewise Democrats should not tip the scale to the left. Both sides should try to keep NPR/PBS and independent voice.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:14 AM	Ron Cummings : Concerning relevance-I would ask if the commercial stations are relevant. Of course Public Brqadcasting is important. It is more than that, it is the unbiased approach to the news and the thoroughness that makes PBS so very important to America.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:14 AM	Edward W. Tornberg : The short answer to the question "Is PBS Still Necessary?" is a resounding YES, especially for viewers who have only commercial airwaves as an alternative. If broadcast TV was a wasteland 40 years ago, it is now a cesspool. All this being said, the article does make some points. The primary difference compared to 40 years ago is the competition of cable alternatives, and although some cable TV wallows in the same muck as broadcast TV, there are good choices which compare well with the better PBS programming. The article also compared the decline in PBS viewership with the increase in NPR listeners. Until recently NPR did not have the same kind of competition that PBS has had from cable - in many cases it has been NPR or commercial radio. (I wonder if satellite radio will eventually provide that competition.) Programs such as "The Newshour", even if into their 3rd or 4th decade, are still far superior to anything on commercial broadcast TV. it is interesting that a couple of NPR programs favorably mentioned in the article, "Car Talk" and "A Prairie Home Companion" have also been around for a long time but their age didn't seem to be considered a negative.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:14 AM	John C. Soltman : The NewsHour is a treasure in our home, a program we NEVER miss. Please keep it going strong!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:13 AM	mp mccann : PBS is highly relevant and much needed in our 30 second soundbite world! The News Hour is the only news show that provides in depth analysis by experts of the days events.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:13 AM	Pat : I find programs like the Jim Lehrer news hour indispensable, balanced, excellent news summaries and download it daily. This news hour covers a wide array of topics not addressed in other TV news broadcasts. It is unfortunate that CHARLES McGRATH presented his article as if he had a majority viewpoint, which in my opinion is untrue. I personally would feel a tremendous loss, if we were to lose PBS programs like the Jim Lehrer news hour, Nova, and Masterpiece. PBS provides a valuable, unbiased, balanced perspective.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:11 AM	solfrid ladstein : Apparently, the writer of the New York Times article has never watched the News Hour since he fails to recognize that there simply is no other news program remotely resembling it on any other television station. Only the News Hour has in-depth treatment of issues of the day, presenting different points of view by people who actually know something about the topics they discuss. Moreover, the writer quite baldly states that because the host has been there since 1975 and because some of the viewers are in "assisted living," that that somehow discredits the quality of the journalism! Unfortunately, it may be that one must be of a certain age in order to understand what journalism is supposed to do. Once upon a time, viewers could expect the three networks to provide a decent amount of information about critical issues; today, we have mere minutes of superficial sound bites on the networks and ranting opinions or incessant repetition of headlines on the cable stations. Moreover, our newspapers have become ghostly imitations of themselves and internet sites attract people who already agree with a certain point of view. It seems clear that there is a strong correlation between the current state of our country and its role in the world and the lack of knowledge on the part of the citizenry. That a New York Times writer could show such lack of understanding is cause for even more pessimism about the future of journalism in this country.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:11 AM	Bruce Donaldson : PBS is just as relevant today as it has ever been. While it certainly could benefit from larger budgets, Nova, Frontline, the News Hour, Inside Washington and its twin are as indespensible now as before. Furthermore, I expect that the Republicans won't be running the show that many more years. If that is the case, we need to keep PBS as strong as it can be until it can once again be indisputably the major source of informative and thought provoking television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:10 AM	Christy : I grew up only being allowed to watch PBS until middle-school, and while I am unable to converse with my friends regarding cartoons and other pop culture icons I am more engaged in politics than them. What I have always enjoyed about PBS and NPR is that it offers a buffet of choices including: cooking, woodworking, construction, children's programs, mysteries, documentaries of all kinds, history programs, news programs, holiday specials...the list goes on. Yes, I am tired of the Welk re-runs and some of the British comedies that have continually repeated, but it is a small price to pay. National Public Broadcasting does have problems but by comparison or standing alone, public radio and tv DOES stand alone and should be supported.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:10 AM	Mark S. Wittman : Pls thank Mr Leher for me - I have been listening to the show since I was about 10 - I am now 40 - no I do not live in assisted living yet - The show is an important part of how I better understand current events and in retrospect now how I view the "history" I have seen unfold. I am proud of how the show has matured over time. For years now the views expressed by guests have been largely unburdened by the point counter point arguments which charecterized the early years of the show. I look forward to the continual improvment of the show and hope to be listening to it well into my days at an assisted living facilltiy. I will likely listen even after my eye sight has failed and I can no longer read the New York Times.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:10 AM	Lucille Richey : Is it necessary? What would I do without it? Aside from C-Span once in awhile, it is the only news program I watch. It covers issues other networks avoid. It presents both sides of almost all issues with informed and intelligent people. I rarely miss a program; I love the Shields and Brooks segment...such fun !!! I would be lost without my " News Hour ". If it were to stop, where would I get my news, BBC? I hope that never happens !!! Thank you for being there !!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:09 AM	Mike : To thinking people, the content is the most important piece of news and current events. The Newshour is about content while even the least biased commercial news programs are more about flashing/moving/eyecandy distractions than they are about content. PBS ought to be leading the way to more informative news. It's the last of the real news. The rest leans more toward "entertainment" in a negative sense.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:09 AM	Linda Garing : It saddens me to have to join a "debate" in support of the invaluable purpose served by public broadcasting!! It's so obvious so as to be ridiculous how important and vital the programming of pbs is to all facets of our society. Where else can one see civilized public discourse of political issues conducted?? Where else is reason given a voice and issues discussed in a manner that is rational and void of bias. where else can you see the faces and the names of those who are dying in the Iraq war? We listen each night in silence and ponder as the pictures appear, the choices we must make and how to go about making them. The network news offers no such opportunity for pondering anything but the shrill, bantering of talking heads offering opinions, far removed from facts. PBS is an oasis of hope, an appeal to our higher selves, a stand against ignorance, and opportunity to hear, see and learn the truths that keep us seeking a better way to live on this earth together. PBS opens our minds, expands our knowledge, raises our awareness, and respects us as viewers who given an opportunity can learn, change and evolve.Let's keep pbs, let's keep our humanity.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:07 AM	D J Vollendorf : Public television is a public good. It brings good programming with good information and good entertainment. It is far and away a cut above other news and entertainment sources. The news is pungent, the pundits informed, the entertainment usually truly entertaining, and PBS carries the estimable Bill Moyers, one of America's finest journalists. If there was no PBS, the American public would be far poorer for it.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:05 AM	Don and Gerry Beers : From our point of view, PBS is all that is worth watching. It provides thoughtful, if not always popular, " insight", "entertainment", "controversy", "enlightenment", "visions" of what makes us human. How could this be questioned as no longer being relevant television. Stating that this same programing is now available on cable, Showtime, etc. is irrelevant. This excludes people who don't have cable or can't, or don't want to, pay for "premium" channels. PBS is for all the people! It is not commercial TV and should not have to worry about Nielson ratings to demonstrate its' relevance. It is the kind of public "program" that the government should support. (As the New York Times article mentions, even some commercial entities believe that the PBS audience is worth pursuing with their limited exposure spots). GO PBS!!!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:05 AM	Kathryn : I cannot imagine not watching PBS...it has been a part of my life for MANY years and it's the only news we watch.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:05 AM	JDHJr : What a silly thing to ask if PBS is still necessary! While the infotainment that scarcely passes for news on the 3 major networks--not to mention Fox or MSNBC--may be fun, it contains little-to-no context or background. The News Hour always gives much more time to exploring the ins and outs of a story. Thank you, News Hour!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:03 AM	Toni Tietjen : I chase twin toddlers around all day. I don't have time for fluff. I record the News Hour and watch it after my boys are down. It's the only in-depth, unbiased news coverage on television. Advertising dollars have ruined television news. The real question the NYTimes should be asking is this -- do we want a well-informed citizenry or an entire population making important decisions based on the entertainment factor? Who cares if the News Hour looks hip or not? The only thing that matters is quality news reporting. And nobody does that better than the entire News Hour team. Thank you!

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:03 AM	Arlene Ulmer : PBS is the only television programming that is intelligent and challenges me to think about important issues. If we didn't have PBS to watch, I wouldn't own a television, as there's nothing else worth watching.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:03 AM	Marsha Bennett : I love NPR and listen to it every day. I am often frustrated by the on again, off again decisions of the NY Times to charge or not to charge for their op-Eds. They are not always fair or balanced in their news. PBS TV fills a huge void here, even with its reruns and occasional tired themes. I love the NewsHour and don't think it is like any other news. Bill Moyers and NOW and NOVA and several other Science programs are much better than I find on network TV or Cable. Antique Roadshow, Globetrekker, arts programming seek out the curious and intelligent, not just the "entertainment" crowd. Thank G for PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:03 AM	Doris Harth : I would feel lost without the newshour. It is the only fully comprehensive news reporting on TV. It gives in depth reporting offering both sides of issues, not just superficial news. It is the only sane news reporting on the issues we face. Kudos to PBs

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:03 AM	tom from harlem : PBS television is number one watching for me. And PBS radio is all I listen to. Is it necessary? Are you kidding. Let me put it this way. Have you been to World Trade Path Station? It's one public space left where there is absolutely no advertisements. I think that means that somebody actually reasoned that the public space should be for the public only. I feel part of a community there, not merely a subject being solicited. There is another space purely for the public. It's public radio.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:03 AM	Mel Belding : I was shocked by the NYT article. I would be lost without PBS as the oasis of a television desert. I wondered if Murdoch was talking to people when I read the article in the NYT- a must weekly read for me. PBS News is without doubt my routine daily main source of news along with NPR and NYT. I cannot imagine resorting to the other newscasts for anything but some local news item. PBS is our channel of choice for our limited television watching and my wife and I find the program content and intellect unequaled. We will continue to support the stations that give us this option and expect our leadership to appreciate this national treasure.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:02 AM	Don C Craig : The Jim Lehrer News Hour is our main source for news. The program presents both sides of news stories in a civilized manner and we don't miss a night. Washington Week in Review, Nova, Masterpiece Theater, English Sit-Coms, Cooking Shows, Antique Road Shows, Traveling Shows are other shows my wife and I watch. Jim Lehrer, Margaret, Ray, Judy, Mark Shields, David Brooks, (Paul Gigot too), Gwen, Bill Moyer and David Broncoshio and the like are the kind of folks we want to continue to visit us in our Living Room regularly. Of course PBS is still necessry ! Locally, newspapers are out of business because they can't deliver to your porch.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:01 AM	Bruce : I'm doing fine without cable....but I couldn't live without my PBS.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:00 AM	John Dewey : The most reliable news reporting is provided by PBS. That includes: Jim Leher, Bill Moyers, Frontline, and special features. The Cable and commercial radio attempts to make the news entertaining and load the news with commercial advertising. I want news, not the latest car chase on the freeway or the dribble about the current show on that TV network. I am more than happy to share the cost of Public Broadcasting.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:00 AM	Eleanor : If it weren't for Jim Leher; Gwyn Ifil; Bill Moyers and others; I would have no other reason to watch Television.

Posted: 02/21/08 at 12:00 AM	Doubting Thomas : I have read a couple of dozen comments....I can't believe it!!!! They all are fullsomely positive and pleased. Sociologically is this an American trait of just the characteristic of the subset of your viewers who write to you when invited. Or do you cull the negative ones as irrelevant? That PBS is necessary since adverts mess up programs and , I suspect, addle the brain!! But its standards are well below what they could be. As a canadian with many connections in the USA I recognize what you may not mention on your programs.....that the USA is not a democracy but a corporate oligarchy and PBS is fearful of offending the powers that be....I watch the Newshour 5 days a week and what a timid program it is. None of your correspondents imply anything like this!!!! The king has no clothes on!!!!!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:59 PM	jede : Jim Lehrer for President in O8 !

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:57 PM	Marcel N : What a sad comment on our society. To read that an educated man can be critical about the aged, people that like to keep informed and have values that differ from his. In a public forum that usually inspires respect. One day, if he is lucky, should be able to view his favourite program as an assisted living viewer (even if not in an institution, but as a recipient of soc. sec, a form of assited living). I view th 6 pm news wherever I am. Usually in LA but many times in Puerto Rico, where I placed a high up antena and receive a signal from US Virgn Islands. Jim and the crew are like members of my extended family Thanks, and thanks again, for keeping us informed, and educating our sociaty, which is in such a need of this kind of help. All the best, and whereven I am I will turn on to the 6 pm news.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:54 PM	Abo : For over 20 years the News Hour has been my main source of reliable information about the world we live in. For me, that show alone makes PBS the most "relevant" network on TV. But there are so many other programs on PBS that are significant and important in their own right, that I don't understand how anyone could question its relevance today. In a time when traditional journalism is evolving into entertainment or news tailored for specific demographic or an infinite number of voices all shouting in the blogosphere, it may be overstating things to say PBS is single-handedly preserving civilization, but some days it sure seems that way. Thank you PBS!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:54 PM	Walter De Palma : We greatly enjoy public television, and usually it is all we watch on TV. There are programs that just would not be presented on "regular" TV stations. Public TV and radio provide the most fair and balanced information available. This of course peeves Republicans whose ideas and actions cannot withstand factual information. As for public radio, it is also great, and usually the only thing worth listenig to. Perhaps the increased time Amerocans spend commuting to work is responsible for greater numbers of listeners.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:51 PM	Marty : It's refreshing to express my enthusiastic appreciation for PBS after my trying to write complaints to MSNBC for its cable news hour employees' partisan news against Hillary Clinton. Jim Lehrer's news hour is a welcome and informative relief as is his coverage of the election. For Jane Austen, PBS News, and the other first class programming you provide, I am most grateful. I am recently widowed and 86 so have a lot of time to enjoy PBS. Thank you!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:49 PM	Marge : PBS not relevant! On what commercial TV station would we see Nature, Rick Steves' Europe, This Old House, Charlie Rose, Great Performances, Bill Moyer's Journal, American, and BBC news? It seems to me that as other stations are cutting back on their foregin bureaus and investigation journalism that PBS is expanding with Margaret Warner going to Parkistan and programs like NOW and Frontline. Not everybody has cable or dish. There is a charge and that depends what is offered. I support PBS and NPR with a pledge. A pledge is whatever a person feels they can afford.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:49 PM	Brenda Godsey : If it weren't for PBS and NPR there would be little for me to watch or listen to. I tape the News Hour everyday so I am sure not to miss it. It is the only place on television that both sides of any issue are presented. The reporters do not spend time being funny or clever but rather focus on the important points of the story and each story is presented in depth, giving background as well as what is happening now. Even when there is some humor such as when Sheilds and Brooks are on, it is done in a thoughtful way and without malice or the meanness frequently seen on other outlets. I also watch other programs on NPR. There is rarely a time that I turn it on that there isn't something interested, educational or thought-provoking. I also enjoy PBS when I am driving, especially across country. "Morning Edition" and "All Things Considered" are especially interesting. I love the "Car Talk" guys on Saturday. To think of getting rid of PBS & NPR is, I believe, the height of insanity. We must have it.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:48 PM	M. Shellaberger : PBS Newshour is my link to the world. I do not care about news related to rock stars or entertainment. I want to know what is happenig in the important world we live in. The News Hour gives in-depth reporting with the best guests and reporters. It is a grown-up show. Don't reduce funding!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:47 PM	Shannon Huhn : It is absurd for the author of the NY Times article to conclude that, "At its best public television adds a little grace note to our lives." The concept of grace does have a place in the discussion of public television: elegance, beauty of expression, a sense of propriety and consideration for others. Those traits, combined with a fundamentally intelligent approach to news and entertainment make public television indispensable to the thinking person. If I had to choose only one station of all the (how many hundreds of?) stations on television to watch for the rest of my life, it would be PBS. For heaven’s sake, give them the money.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:44 PM	mtmjj : It is sad that the question can even be asked. PBS is suffering defunding by a government with a clear agenda to eliminate national cultural institutions while at the same coping with the same shifting television landscape which is eroding the commercial broadcast networks. It is a gross oversimplification to suggest that its decline is due to natural market forces or that the commercial television marketplace will provide the essential programming now found on PBS. It seemed especially strange to target the Newshour, and in particular Jim Lehrer's age. The Newshour is perhaps the single best example of what PBS offers and that commercial television can not. While network newscasts have been reduced to 17 minutes of ratings conscious fluff and cable news has devolved into personality driven opinion monologues, the Newshour survives as the last true newscast in the nation. It provides in-depth objective coverage of those stories which should be covered, and in doing so relies heavily on the experience of Jim Lehrer and the Newshour team. Judy Woodruff's move to the Newshour is a fine illustration of what is happening to broadcast journalism. Her age and experience may no longer have fit CNN's shifting concept of "news", but she has been a perfict fit on the Newshour. The Newshour doesn't need a youth makeover - it needs to continue to be exactly what it is. Finally, these are the opinions of a couple in their 30's, not a pair of 73 year olds. While accepting that PBS's share of the audience may be dwindling, its continued relevance to a broad demographic of Americans who care continues to make it necessary.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:43 PM	ikie : PBS is so needed and I would be totally lost for concise and complete news without The Newshour & Washington Week. I don't have cable, and won't have, and I find the national news just does not cut it...... I get the FULL picture of what is happening and what is going on out there that the national news stations only give us snippets and what THEY think we want to hear.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:43 PM	Frank Smith : PBS is irrelevant only if we all agree that everything can be bought and sold including the minds of citizens. A look at other networks reinforces me of my concern about the poor, ego-centric state of our culture. It's all about the money, fame, the latest this or that. PBS forces the viewer to use something other than the remote control... their brain! I enjoy the dignity intelligence and sophistication of the shows presented. The next place you should go after most programs is the Library!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:42 PM	Emmett & Ruth Hearn : Yes, PBS is very vibrant and necessary source for news, views and entertainment. We have found that the News Hour with Jim Lehrer to be the most reliable source for the important news events. Their interviewers are among the very best on TV. The individuals they bring to the program zre outstanding and the remotes around the world are fantastic. We try hard to watch the NewsHour every evening, even taping it so it is available to our schedule. We rarely watch any other news program.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:42 PM	Nancy B. : PBS is indispensable. I watch it almost exclusively. There are too many valuable programs to cite but I will name several. The "News Hour" provides in-depth reporting and discussion of both sides of an issue. Other programs have a similar focus on issues of importance to the city and state. "Mr. Rogers" is one of the best things that ever happened to Pittsburgh. I am happy to be a "couch potato" when it comes to PBS!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:42 PM	Hal and Anne Foster : PBS is the only TV station that we watch; it is the only reason we have a television. Without this station, the nation would be even more stupid than it is. We stop in our tracks for the News Hour and Bill Moyers. PBS should be the model for this country's television. Long may it wave.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:41 PM	Joyce M. Carraher : About ten years ago I gave up on commericial TV and radio news shows, except for the local weather report. I now get my news on PBS and NPR. For local news I also use my local newspaper. I think that answers the question!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:41 PM	danieltorpey : The Times article is a thinly veiled attempt to gain market share in what remains of the honest media industry. The Times has a profit motive to dethrone PBS (and NPR) to capture more readers and web clicks and ad dollars. It is the same when you compare any 60 minutes of television from cable and public broadcasting. In the 60 minutes of cable, you'll see screamingly loud commercials hawking whatever consumer good or service. In the public broadcasting hour, you'll see none of the outlandish ads, and get predictable amounts of substance form the broadcast. The Newshour, and PBS and NPR, do not share these profit motives, and all the more reason to holler in their defense. Would you ever see NPR or PBS asking if the New York Times is still necessary? I think not, because they don't have to step on good thing in order to sell more ads.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:41 PM	zeni : At first, I thought I would not like the article that sparked this debate. But after reading it I realized the author is not against public broadcasting, rather they protest the "mustiness" of some programing. As a young mestiza Xicana I have to agree that PBS puts forth conservative views and rarely shows innovative ways of resolving social injustices (unless it late night). Programing on PBS caters to an older population and needs to diversify their programing for the youthful, multi ethnic and racial people who compose the USA. I also agree with the author that more public money is what PBS needs. I am ashamed that I must sit through commercials before watching the Newshour and other adult programing. I am straight up mad that fast food places have commercials before PBS KIDS programming. The Chick Fila, Chuck E Cheese and McDonald's commercials are especially upsetting considering the obesity rate among our youth. I love many shows on PBS, but the institution needs to WAKE UP and SHAKE UP their programing, funding, and perspective. Thank you for reading my ideas.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:40 PM	SusanOD : Without PBS, there would be nothing to watch. The news coverage and commentary is unmatched. If there were no Newshour and programs such as Frontline, I would end up selling the TV. Previously, I would have said I'd read the New York Times instead, until reading yesterday's article questioning the existence of PBS. The article did, however, identify lack of money as a problem, and I agree with that point. An obvious solution would be to increase government funding, at the same time placing the management and programming decisions outside the reach of the government. This country deserves a true public broadcasting system.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:40 PM	Mike Welch : Like a previous poster, I also have two shows I hate to miss. One is, of course, the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. I don't see how anyone can claim to be informed about the issues affecting us every day without being a regular viewer of the News Hour. Their in-depth reporting is head and shoulders above the network and cable news shows that just scratch the surface and sometimes display their particular bias. The other show I hate to miss is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Comedy Central, which probably indicates my particular bias!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:40 PM	Jim Engelman : PBS is important in the media world. I rely on many of their programs for both information and entertainment. There is no doubt that PBS is unique and a valuable asset which deserves public and private support.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:39 PM	phillyjan : After 5 years of a war few of us wanted, and which even fewer of us have had a personal stake in, there is only ONE news source that several times a week forces us to look into the faces of young men and women who have died on our behalf, and middle-aged husbands and fathers who will never walk into their homes again. I stand each time the "Honor Roll" is aired and look into their eyes. Only PBS asks us to confront this tragedy. If PBS were not here, who else would? We know the answer. No one.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:39 PM	Brian : It is remarkable that despite all the new choices that have emerged for news over the last ten years, nothing comes close to the quality and vitality of the Newshour. The show has remained fresh over all these years. I am 42 and have watched since I was in Junion High. In all these years, I could not even fathom the political leanings of any of the reporters. Jim Leherer asks the basic questions we want answered without grandstanding or pretending to be the smartest in the room. With all the politicization of the media (Fox on the right and now MSNBC looking left), the role of a show like the Newshour is more important than ever. Similarly, there is nothing like shows such as American Experience, Nova or Frontline on network television. PBS is more vital than ever.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:39 PM	Mark Cory : PBS redeems television, and the News Hour ought to be made mandatory viewing for the President and his/her cabinet.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:38 PM	M. Pizzo : Without PBS we have no credible source of information. Network news provides local news. Anything beyond that is limited and controlled by corporate interests. With newspapers in a sorry decline, where would we be without Frontline, Moyer's Journal, and Now. Who would ask such a question of PBS? Only the ignorant and narrow minded who have no interest in learning and finding the truth. Heaven help us!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:37 PM	Robert E : I do think that PBS has lost a little bit of its adventuresome programming spirit during the current Bush administration. This is understandable. Hopefully, this will change under a new administration in Washington DC in 2009. PBS is still the one place to go for great programs that are just not available elsewhere – NOVA, Frontline, News Hour, and Great Performances, just to name a few. The diminishment of PBS would be a national loss. It’s even hard to imagine. I spent several years overseas and my greatest pleasure was the ability to view the News Hour each day. It’s a national treasure.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:37 PM	Kitty : If PBS did not exist my life would be less rich. I have watched the News Hour since the beginning and recorded the program when the time was not convenient. I support all the PBS stations in my area and have a wonderful choice of times in which to watch favorite programs such as the News Hour. Thank you PBS.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:37 PM	JDinTexas : PBS can't live without it. The quality of their programming far surpasses network broadcasting.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:37 PM	lois klein : love love pbs--would feel a tremendous loss to not have pbs, exactly as it is---Jim Lehrer, masterpiece theatre, Charlie rose, Sat. movies, Nova,--all top notch

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:36 PM	Porfirio Rodriguez : Before we had children my wife and I enjoyed our Sunday subscription to the Times. 12 years and 4 children later we have found out that the Sunday Times is a fond memory but PBS is a daily requirement. If Jim L. is in his 70's then it is a testament that doing what you are pasionate about keeps you young. The If/Then argument in the article was interesting. Of course I listen to NPR twice a day because I am trapped in my car and I have few choices, but I watch PBS because I choose to, even though I have hundreds of other choices. The assumption that PBS competes with cable is funny as well because I watch PBS on 2 cable channels. The Newshour is the only show I DVR. My 2nd grader recently drew a picture of our home and wrote a brief summary entitled "My Home" and one of the lines was "... is my Dad coming home from work and watching the News Hour". I watch this show with my children and discuss the programming with them. The content matters and the civility also matters. I am a Texan and can get physical if I have to but that should not be the nature of civilized discourse. In a country where our President travels around and has "Town Meetings" but only invites supporters, it is important for them to see people who can disagree in a civilized way. Where else would my children see this? Plus, t is nice to watch a News show where people speak in complete sentences and use correct grammar. The pieces are journalism with backstory. Those who don't know their history are destined to repeat it. So when my daughter's 5th grade teacher asked if anyone knew about the Little Rock 9, my daughter knew they were not a Rockabilly band. She was able to tell the class that they were students that were in her words treated badly by "grown men and women who were old enough to know better, just for wanting to go to school." Her teacher asked how she knew and she said, we saw it last week on the News Hour. Do we need PBS? Of course we do. I think it is much like the want/need paradigm that I try to stress with my children. You may want dessert but you need your dinner. Well, I may want the Sunday Times but I need PBS. It may not be the sexiest thing on TV, but it is the most nourishing. Thank you for me and for my family.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:34 PM	Joan : PBS is absolutely vital for providing unbiased news and analysis. More money needs to be provided by the government to allow quality arts entertainment. Other T.V. options may provide more programs but, they are not necessarily quality programs nor do they provide in depth coverage of the news. Unlike PBS, these other stations are motivated by profit, not providing the public with the best programming possible.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:33 PM	Rachel Cohen : The Times editorial says that those of us addicted to long news shows can now get our "fix" on the cable news shows -- but it isn't even close! What you can get on CNN is the same 5 minutes of analysis repeated over and over again -- not the in depth analysis that we get from the News Hour! And no one is doing the work that Frontline does!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:33 PM	Harvey : All of us love the News Hour [and Washington Week] and record it if unable to watch it live. but the article was about PBS programming not the News Hour. All I have ever watched since the day our station went on the air is public television. All I ever listen to is NPR. The fact is that in recent years there is a marked deterioration in PBS programming and pledge is the fund raising equivalent of water boarding. In fact in San Diego Washington Week is moved to an earlier less convenient time during pledge and we often forget to tape it. So the News Hour is 5 hours a week plus 30 more minutes for Gwen. If you are enamored with Miss Marple, four months of Jane Austen, polar bears and Frontline reruns you have too little fresh material to chose from. It is true, I find myself watching less television because I do not wish to pay extra for A&E or the History channel. Earlier Ken Burns was interesting but now even his very expensive productions have become tiring. So don't shoot the messenger. If the rest of PBS was News Hour quality there would have been no story.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:33 PM	Ron Bromwell : Is PBS necessary? Can there be any doubt. Compared to regular commercial broadcasting PBS is the answer to many prayers. It is informative; stimulating and challenging and not afraid to question the highest authorities in the country. Although many would say it has a left wing bias time has proven over the past seven years articles questioning Bush administration and Republican Party policies have been well founded. Without PBS where would we get unbiased information in this age of multiple media corporate ownership? The only allegiance that corporations seem to have is to their share value resulting in advertising, advertising and more advertising. It is no wonder that more of us are moving to TiVo and recorded information with the ability to edit the content. And, I guarantee the TiVo owners have their sets programmed for many PBS shows on a regular basis. Long Live PBS, it is an oasis in a sea of mediocrity.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:33 PM	Stephen S. : Having been a viewer of The NewsHour for years-beyond remembering, it is puzzling to see how the appeal of the cable cacophony can provide even a semblance of meaningful questioning of PBS's value. Charles McGrath's article say more about his ineptly-disguised taste, than PBS. His patronizing characterization of "hand-wringing earnestness on the part of Bill Moyers or David Brancaccio" says much about McGrath's priorities, and one wonders how long it has been since he changed from knickers to long pants? Yes, Jim Lehrer is a bit more conservative now, and I have never understood his unwillingness to vote (to avoid any appearance of partisanship), but his high standards speak for themselves, and his choice of NewsHour regulars is excellent. In addition to this program, we watch Frontling, NOVA, et al, studiously avoiding Lawrence Welk and the boring fund-raising Elvis Special antiques. KEEP PBS ALIVE AND PROVIDE MORE FUNDING!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:33 PM	Mark Bearwald : Why PBS? The News Hour, Nature, the fine drama shows on Sunday nights, Roadshow - even the British comedies, re-runs though they may be. Why PBS? Watch Katie Couric on CBS and then Jim Lehrer. Headlines interspersed with ads for patent medicines on one hand, solid news on the other.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:31 PM	Phillip Brant : PBS is our favorite channel by far. No other channel's programming comes close to the quality in PBS programs. Isn't that rather surprising when you consider the vast sums of money paid by advertisers to some of the other channels? We especially like PBS's in-depth news and Frontline coverage, their magnificent dramas, great music shows, and wonderful and highly informative explorations of the scientific and natural worlds. PBS is for the viewer who wants to feel, think and learn. Our country cannot afford to be without it.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:31 PM	Sabina : Where else can you go to get in-depth analysis of what is happening around the world and in the U.S? Information that is based on fact rather than "pundits". Advertising time is dedicated to news!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:30 PM	Lorna and Lyle : We consider PBS essential to being informed, as well as being entertained. More and more we value and watch PBS, since programming on other channels continues to deteriorate. The NewsHour presents balanced, thoughtful, and relevant news, which we watch every night possible. Jim Lehrer, along with Gwen, Ray, Margaret, Judy and all are outstanding. NOW, Bill Moyers, and Frontline present information which would be difficult to find elsewhere, such as in newspapers, which we read. In addition to the excellent news programming, PBS presents a rich variety of educational and cultural programs. Masterpiece Theater and Mystery come to mind as fine examples. We support PBS and consider the national contribution important, and a small price to pay for a more informed public. Thank you PBS !

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:29 PM	Gary Drew : Ah yes! What can be done for the sake of cutting budgets. The same arguements, I am sure, were used when cutting art and music classes. It's just too expensive. We've got better things to spend our money on. And so on and so forth. The fact is that as a society there are some things we just need to spend our money on. PBS is one of those things.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:28 PM	theresa rosenbaum : The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is the best in Television news reporting...providing intelligent , in depth coverage of significant daily events with insightful analysis of those events. It is a must in our home. Periodically we check out the major networks news shows...only to return to Jim Lehrer and his staff of fabulous reporters. Stories of the day are given appropriate time on Newshour not "sound bites" ...Stories are given multiple points of view to enable the viewer to find his/her own position ... I try never to miss Shields and Brooks ..a special favorite on Fridays.......we are devoted NPR listeners.....like it alot...but find no show equal to Jim Lehrer's Newshour....

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:28 PM	JBN : We support PBS with our money and our time on a daily basis. No new program on TV compares with the News Hour for balance and accurate reporting. No program on TV stimulates careful thought better than Bill Moyers Journal with NOW running a strong second. I am disappointed that the NY Times can see the value of PBS. What criteria could they possibly have used to come to such a negative judgment. Also, PBS is a FREE channel where a family who cannot now afford their Cable network can be assured that they will have quality programing for their children. Where else will you find programs as stimulating as NOVA, Nature, and the American Experience? Where else on TV do you find an effort to counter the "dumbing down of America" as seen on the cable and dish channels?

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:27 PM	Evelyn Frisk : I think Charles McGrath has outlived his usefulness.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:27 PM	kanoesque : Looking into the breach of our tomorrow before us, do we really want to do without programs like News Hour and Frontline, etc.?

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:27 PM	Linda : When I hear that there are some who think public television and public radio are unneccessary I wonder what they don't want the public to know!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:26 PM	theresa rosenbaum : The Newshour with Jim Lehrer is the best in Television news reporting...providing intelligent , in depth coverage of significant daily events with insightful analysis of those events. It is a must in our home. Periodically we check out the major networks news shows...only to return to Jim Lehrer and his staff of fabulous reporters. Stories of the day are given appropriate time on Newshour not "sound bites" ...Stories are given multiple points of view to enable the viewer to find his/her own position ... I try never to miss Shields and Brooks ..a special favorite on Fridays.......we are devoted NPR listeners.....like it alot...but find no show equal to Jim Lehrer's Newshour....

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:25 PM	charlie m : Relevant? PBS is essential more now than ever!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:25 PM	William Hausman, MD : In my view, PBS furnishes the most reliable prgramming and the information is less commercially contaminated than is true of any other station available to me at this time. We should make all efforts to continue this very important source of public information. To diminish it or make it less free would be a disaster.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:23 PM	FloraDora : PBS is my favorite channel and Newshour with Jim Lehrer is my most needed program. Absolutely relevant and signifant. The NYT article was off base in opining that there are many alternatives overriding PBS and lessening its significance. Wrong. PBS is still exciting, fresh, illuminating - I don't want to live without it.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:23 PM	David Wyatt : I respect the New York Times but of course we need PBS! In a time where commercialism and marketing increasingly dictates what is reported it is important to have sources like PBS (and NPR) for solid reporting. I'm a journalism student and I have to say working for the NewsHour would be a dream job!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:23 PM	wayne kirkbride : Radio aside, PBS still offers the most comprehensive news and analysis of world events that network tv long ago gave up on. I watch a network news program for a brief 30 minutes, including the commercial breaks, then switch to the "Newshour" to get the full picture and understanding. Watching network news is like reading condensed news-"Readers Digest" style with every other line left out. There should be more, not less acceptance and support of PBS for an INFORMED public. Without it, our society would suffer greatly if our need for information and truth were left to commercial outlets solely.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:21 PM	Dan Ellecamp : There is only one real news program on television and that is The Newshour. I would be lost without it! Thank you Jim and everyone who works so hard to put a quality product on the air each and every week night. I am a more informed citizen thanks to your show. Keep up the great work!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:21 PM	Janice Robertson : Without the time to read various news sources, how would I arrive at an unbiased view of current issues? Jim Lehrer's News Hour gives me that standard from which to compare. We need that now more than ever.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:20 PM	howard laitin : My TV viewing is mostly PBS: BBC News, News Hour, Charlie Rose, etc. I know (from my White House days) Bill Moyers. He is very sincere, very bright and very biased (left wing). I have recommended Charlie Rose as one of the best interviewers on tv to several thousand high school and college students. I would be happier if he would also interview some more conservative authors such as the former vice chief of the Iraqi Air Force; the former head of Husseins nearly successful nuclear program; Philip Shenon; etc. Rose has very strong opinions and shows extreme discomfort when he cannot control the interview. News Hour is the most informative news program on TV. However, often incorrect or misleading statements are made and there is no ombudsman that one can contact to correct them. Further, as a military veteran, I believe that showing the military deaths is not a tribute to my fellow soldiers, but is a not so subtle contributor to the campaign to undermine the support for our necessary military involvements. I would appreciate equivalent coverage of the many acts of valor that take place daily and the many thousands of good works that we are performing in Afghanistan and Iraq. I and my fellow soldiers are not victims. We are dedicated to keeping America free and safe. While I value PBS, I am concerned that much of the criticism that PBS has a decided left wing bias is correct. National Public Radio is so decidedly biased and provides so much erroneous information, that by association with PBS in the public mind, you are tarred with their misrepresentations and misdeeds.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:20 PM	Gina in Seattle : It is beyond my comprehension why Congress believes public subsidization of commercial enterprises is appropriate while repeatedly hacking PBS's funding. Commercial TV has become a wasteland when our culture is capable of so much more. PBS plays an essential role in educating us and our children, and is available even to hard-working families that don't count cable TV as an essential budget item. It is clear that the FCC does not take seriously the obligation to the public that accompanies access by commercial TV to the public airways. We need funding of PBS replenished by us as a national community so it can broaden its scope of programming as well as take risks without jeopardizing that funding. A well-informed, critical-thinking public is essential to a strong and vibrant democracy. --To those at The News Hour, thank you for being there all these years and keep up the great work! We need you!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:20 PM	Tim Leonard : I watch the news hour with Jim Lehrer, and once in a while I watch Bill Moyers. There surely is a place for PBS, but the article is correct about the superiority of NPR. If PBS were not so afraid of taking a point of view, it would improve, but it has seemingly fallen into the trap of dependence upon its sponsors. For example, while the current administration courted Mr. Musharraf for the past seven years, PBS did nothing that I can recall about the actual life on the ground in Pakistan -- preferring to present the Bushian fear-mongering about Iran. To its credit, PBS has paid more attention to Palestinians than other TV newssources, but still neglects analyses of AIPAC and the ruinous influence it has on public awareness and foreign policy. The interviewers are better than average, especially Jeffrey Brown and Ray Suarez, but they still tend to avoid asking really tough questions.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:20 PM	Bill&Rhonda : For many years we have been privileged to have PBS beamed into our home here in Canada. The News Hour is a vital part of our daily routine. The level of professionalism and unbiased reporting is second to none.It's refreshing to feel that you are being enlightened and not merely entertained. With the state of our planet today, PBS is a place the viewer can go and take comfort in knowing there are still good people who take pride in providing quality programs for all ages.Bravo!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:18 PM	Bob and Louise : Our radio dial rarely leaves NPR, except for local classical and jazz programming. Regarding PBS-TV, there is nothing better. We do watch sporting events, local news and a sitcom or two on local commercial channels, but when it comes to quality programming content, The News Hour and PBS overall has no equal. We don't see our world in sound bites. We don't believe in the "if it bleeds, it leads" news format we often see locally. PBS-TV should always work to stay fresh and relevant, of course. But, without it, our world would far less informative. Oh, we also subscribe to the Sunday NYTimes and enjoy savoring it each week, as well. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:18 PM	Rob Wind : We would miss PBS if it were taken off the air. However, we believe that politically it leans left and especially leans towards the Democrats.. I especially do not like most of the Bill Moyer programs

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:18 PM	Vince Healy : For-profit TV is beyond my means. AS mainstream network standards tailspin, Public Television is THE forum which still invites me to think about critical issues--CRITICALLY!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:18 PM	Irene J,Lawrence,PhD : We support PBS 100%. Its programs are our favorites. PLEASE continue to broadcast them. Sincerely, Irene J.Lawrence,PhD & Tom Conrady

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:18 PM	Robin : I concur with the vast majority. I have been a viewer my entire adult life. I literally formed my idea of what news coverage should be based on how the NewsHour does it. My 5-year-old knows Jim Lehrer and doesn't know Sponge Bob. My favorite NewsHour moment bar none was when the OJ Simpson verdict came in. After reporting the facts, Jim Lehrer felt compelled to explain to his audience that "OJ Simpson was the former football player who was accused of murdering his wife." That presumption, that there was someone left in the universe who might somehow have avoided the sleazy details of that case, spoke volumes to me about the priorities of the NewsHour in particular, and PBS in general.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:18 PM	Pat : I would like to encourage further support for the PBS stations. I feel that their program selection is a cut above other television stations. Masterpiece is an outstanding program as are many other programs they broadcast. It is the only place one can go to get an unbiased news program. I truly appreciate that. I sincerely hope that PBS can continue bringing us their great programs.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:18 PM	Carl Reynolds : I watch The Jim Lehrer News Hour every evening it broadcasts unless I am travelling. I read one newspaper in hardcopy and download numerous articles online, occasionally from The NY Times. The News Hour is one of the very best sources I've found for balanced discussions. Washington Week In review with Gen Ifil is another. The Bill Moyers hour is unsurpassed as an incisive commentary program. Foreign Exchange is also an excellent review of important international issues. I contribute monthly to two OBS affiliate radio stations KLCC in Eugene, Oregon and KOPB in Portland, Oregon. The comment in the NY Times that PBS is unnecessary is absurd and brings the intelligence of those editing what is said in that paper into serious question.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:17 PM	Pam Galvani : Do away with PBS and/or The Newshour? NO!!! If these essential parts of the news media go away, I will toss my television. There is no comparable source of unbiased information available. As an avid reader of the NY Times, I almost feel like never buying another copy! What a crazy suggestion! PBS is one of the most valuable sources of information available to an American today in this otherwise commercially-crazed society. David Brancaccio, Bill Moyers and Jim Lehrer represent journalism's finest possibility: telling both sides of complicated stories.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:16 PM	Leo Fyer : America without public radio and TV would be a disaster for this country almost equal to the election of George W Bush. While I agree with some of the negative comments about public TV, I've given up watching CNN more than five minutes a day because that's all the real news there is on it. I do feel that PBS TV has tilted to the right slightly, however compared to the other TV channels it's still the only thing worth watching. Keep up the good work.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:16 PM	charles proudfit : Who is behind Mc Grath's superficial attack on PBS? Why did the NYTimes publish it? And perhaps more disturbing is that this is another example of our hell-bent race toward mediocrity and making ignorance a virtue. After 40 years of teaching on the university level, I'm appalled and disturbed by our lackadaisical attitude toward education and contempt for culture.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:16 PM	La Abuelita : Do we still need PBS?? Oh my, what conservative, corporate mogul came up with that question? In today's world where would we be without our PBS? Notice I use the word "our". It belongs to us. It is our voice and our eyes. It enables us to see the world around us with more honesty than with any other available public source. Questions like that make me realize how vigilant we need to be these days. Que Viva PBS!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:16 PM	Dick Anderson : We support PBS with annual donations -- we'd never do that if PBS wasn't important to us. The News Hour is "must-see" TV in our house, with better and more balanced news coverage than any other TV news outlet.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:15 PM	heineike02 : While there are a few good points in the NYT Article (NPR does have more programming that I like that PBS), there are a few shows that you just can't get anywhere else - The News Hour, Frontline, Nova, Austin City Limits. Also there are some great unique local programs. There are a few shows that may not be worth my tax dollars - Antique Road Show, the Ballroom Dancing show. The government and the citizens who hold it accountable should carefully consider cutting funding to such a vital outlet of the American Free Press in the era of 24 hour news. Who else will ask the questions that the News Hour staff asks to the people they ask and how will we me hear their answers?

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:15 PM	Rhoads : I watch PBS more than all the other channels combined. I rely on the News Hour for the best news on TV. CNN used to be good, but has tried to compete with FOX with demogogary. It is no longer reliable. Keep it up OBS for ever. Rhoads

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:15 PM	Montana : When Public TV is not influenced by politics, I find that the news stories I see are the most relevent. Inclusive interviews and indepth views that give me an opportunity to decide for myself are what I count on the Public Broadcasting programs for. Multiple points of view are the basis of a sound decision and not a hastily made opinion. I appreciate being able to find unbiased news. I can count on PBS to try to excel in this area. Before private sponsorship the news was more unbiased and I believe that the private sponsorship encourages bias. I miss Robert McNeil and I only hope that the voices of America will still be heard.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:14 PM	Bennet Greenwald : I get the New York Times in the morning (I live in San Diego and we don't have a real newspaper).I read the Glaser article and I first thought "This guy is an idiot." But - it's the Times - right? So I thought okay let's give Glaser the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's smarter or better plugged in than I am. So I wasted two and one half hours of my precious time watching so called news programs on my television and my computer. From 4:30 PM to 7 PM PST I looked at local and so called national news and various web browsers containing what silicon valley engineers laughingly call news. Aside from a sore throat from yelling at machines, and feeling nauseous at the vapidity and thoughtlessness I saw, I recovered nicley by listening to the News Hour at 7 PM. Most of the "other outlets" I watched missed the Castro resignation, but there was poor old plodding PBS running intelligent comentary on an event of historic significance. Just keep trucking you guys. Republicans and Glaser to the contrary notwithstanding you are a beacon of decency in a pretty mucked up media world. As I first thought Glaser is an idiot. I will write a real letter compalining about the idiot to the New York Times although there may not be anyone there to read it. They are laying off 100 "news" people. All the more reason to hope the News Hour perseveres and thrives. Thanks Bennet Greenwald

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:14 PM	Phyllis C : Without PBS where would we go for both sides of the news stories? Cable & network shows present the owners perspectives. Where would we get quality children's programing without being sold products? Where would we get varied entertainment that engages many different tastes? PBS is as relevant today as it was when it started many years ago and I hope we always have that choice.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:14 PM	Gary : I enjoy watching the Newshour and its balanced informative news casts. Where else can we get uncommercialed news presented with the viewer in mind rather then the dramatic hype of a broadcasting corporation whose main purpose is to bring in viewers for its sponsers commercials. Pbs's programming such as Nova, Nature, etc. is unique in its coverage. We don't have dish or cable and are very happy with the PBS shows that we watch. We couldn't be more pleased that with the advent of HD t.v. we now have (4) PBS channels to watch. Thanks PBS and keep up the good work!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:13 PM	phil mees : I vote, and I participate. I like to know what's going on in the world as if its my own house. There is no other electronic venue or program where balanced discussions of major national and international issues can be found. PBS generally and McNeil Lehrer specifically are absolutely essential to those who wish a clear window from which to form rational perpsectives, and do democracy. All other "news" is suspect, mere newsaganda or infotainment, delivered with a cult of personality to shape opinion or sell product. The only thing wrong with PBS is that there is not more of it. Its a sad comment on our country that such a small niche of the public's airways are reserved for such an important essential as rational, balanced discussion of life changing issues.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:12 PM	Stan Haxton : If there is a news program anywhere on TV that discusses issues with multiple points of view represented, but in a non-adversarial, rational, no-crosstalk way - other than on PBS - I wish you would tell me where to find it. The only TV programming my wife and I watch consists of News Hour, Masterpiece, local news and weather, and British made-for -TV movies, and old American movies we get from Netflix or from our own private collection. [Oh yes, and Keeping UP Appearances]. I agree with the Times article in its praise of NPR and the other public radio networks [though it's time for Garrison Keillor to find something else to do]. But until there is some other cable channel that does news like New Hour does, PBS is still necessary.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:11 PM	F.Wuepper : For some time the news has been full of stories of deception with facts so garbled due to deceit and corruption that we turn on the television and wonder why it at least appears that so many people are not appalled by the deceptions. I realize that if more people watched The News hour, like we do, they'd probably be able to see many issues a little clearer, so frequently, when I'm trying to explain an issue to someone, I recommend The News Hour instead of asking them to take only my word for it, because the most important thing is just that clear information about issues come out. I particularly plug The News Hour to relatives who are staunch Republicans unlike myself, because that is better than discussing the issues sometimes. My husband just last week referred a friend who is a pastor to your show, mentioning the respect you give the soldiers who die in Iraq. I've even mentioned the show when I've written letters to the editor in the local newspaper if I recall correctly. I take it for granted sometimes that there will always be truthful, unbiased, comprehensive news reports reported by people like Jim Lehrer (and associates) and Bill Moyers. Though my entire family watches other PBS programming including Wired Science and ballroom dance challenges, the skills and experience of the PBS reporters alone are reason to hope that PBS never loses funding. So, keep up the good work and I've written my Congressmen on your behalf, not that they'd necessarily listen to me. Sincerely, Mrs.F. Wuepper

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:11 PM	Occamist : I find the NYT article shallow and loaded with language that reveals the bias of the opinion piece. The argument that PBS's lack of style is not in fashion is patently silly and speaks volumes about what is clearly wrong with modern media: form is valued over substance. PBS and NPR provide valuable substance and their failure to spend valuable resources on fashion trends is refreshing and reasonable. I support both PBS & NPR and have for decades. Long live PBS.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:11 PM	M. Aldridge : Give PBS much MORE money, not less, if you want better programs, Charles McGrath! We are faithful listeners of the Newshour and the Friday evening commentary programs, Charlie Rose, etc. as well as public radio, and of course we miss the wonderful original programming that Masterpiece Theater and other PBS slots could once afford to make. We WANT our taxes to support PBS television and radio. Recently retired, we are really conscious of budgeting and cannot afford a full panoply of cable choices even if we found them to be something more than drek. You know, every once in a while I am reminded of the effete snobs that inhabit parts of the planet and Sunday, reading Charles McGrath, was one of those days.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:10 PM	WJRuegg : PBS is very important for our entire family. We have provided finanial support for many many years. Keep up the good work

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:10 PM	F.Wuepper : For some time the news has been full of stories of deception with facts so garbled due to deceit and corruption that we turn on the television and wonder why it at least appears that so many people are not appalled by the deceptions. I realize that if more people watched The News hour, like we do, they'd probably be able to see many issues a little clearer, so frequently, when I'm trying to explain an issue to someone, I recommend The News Hour instead of asking them to take only my word for it, because the most important thing is just that clear information about issues come out. I particularly plug The News Hour to relatives who are staunch Republicans unlike myself, because that is better than discussing the issues sometimes. My husband just last week referred a friend who is a pastor to your show, mentioning the respect you give the soldiers who die in Iraq. I've even mentioned the show when I've written letters to the editor in the local newspaper if I recall correctly. I take it for granted sometimes that there will always be truthful, unbiased, comprehensive news reports reported by people like Jim Lehrer (and associates) and Bill Moyers. Though my entire family watches other PBS programming including Wired Science and ballroom dance challenges, the skills and experience of the PBS reporters alone are reason to hope that PBS never loses funding. So, keep up the good work and I've written my Congressmen on your behalf, not that they'd necessarily listen to me. Sincerely, Mrs.F. Wuepper

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:09 PM	John Samuels : As defensive, and supportive, as I've become of PBS TV, I understand the argument extended in the NY Time article referenced. I think it's a natural reaction to the apparent worth of the entire medium, which is to say TV is becoming as slanted, "owned" and worthless as any institution in America today, in addition to falling behind the trends of distribution, iPods, mobility and all related evolution. And if you agree, why would you not support public money directed at one of few remaining, I'm counting on one hand, examples of truly worthwhile programming distributed today via TV. Network news is dead, creative writing has been disembowled (long gone the Seinfeld's and West Wings of the genre), and a new TV observer today would more quickly learn of Lindsey's disfunction than anything remotely useful to citizenship, in any country. I marvel everyday at what The Newshour is able to broadcast, and the manner in which they allow useful, balanced discussion that supports understanding and grasp, rather than rhetoric and group-think. I say Jim Lehrer is the only hero on TV, I feel like telling him that almost every evening. Sincerely, -JS

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:09 PM	Drew : PBS is more relevant than anything else on TV. As the quality and variety of commercial TV continues to decline, we watch Public Television more than anything else and the New Hour every night, and Friday night, we wtch nothing else from the News Hour through Bill Moyers. A democracy has an obligation to educate it's citizenry and PBS is an important element in the mix for children and adults. Nothing else on television compares with the quality of PBS.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:09 PM	Wayne Vance : I try without fail to watch my local news a 5 then Brian Williams national news at 5:30. After that I tune into the Newshour to see what has really transpired over the past 24 hours. The contrast is startling and a very sobering experience to see what is behind the news blips of the mainstream media and the indepth coverage of PBS. Between the Newshour, Bill Moyer, Now and Washington week a person can actually keep track of worthy events on the national scene. Keep up the outstanding work and pay no attention to the naysayers. Thank you

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:08 PM	Andre R. Newcomb : In over the air-waves public broadcasting I want to be able to hear/see what is being told to peope who can't afford satellite/cable services. There seems to be a certain 'something' in making sure that ALL segments of this continent have some sort of contact with the influences that affect their day-to-day. In Public Television there is often a quality that only finds pretenders on any of the other stations. Even though I watch television on a satellite provider and spend quite a bit of time elsewhere with news programming, C-span, documentaries, HGTV, History, and 'local access' -- there are many, many times that I would rather watch something that PBS is presenting. And I always surf the program guide and make 'note' of what is happening there. One thing that concerns me about some of the 'over-the-air' broadcasting as it affects the public welfare is the need for revenue and how those needs sort of move the population deeper into consumerism. 'Such group-think' only makes land-fills and lessens a person's time on earth as to make a person only an account--hungry and disposable. PBS and quality strives to make a person's life more than that. I hope that the solvency of the currency ("shall coin the money and set the value therein") can remember that.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:08 PM	Ruth Polata : "Is PBS still necessary?" What a great topic for a debate between Charles McGrath and Gwen Ifill! Bring it on, PBS, and I'll double my donation.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:07 PM	Daniel O. Baker : I have enjoyed and appreciated the candor and viewing of various sides in business, politics and other issues brought out in the various news broadcasts such as by Jim Leherer over the years. My family has enjoyed the high quality of shows such as Jane Austin and Mr. Rogers. Please continue to support this type of programming.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:07 PM	Dale Guthrie : I feel like the only source of unbiased news coverage on TV and radio is PBS. My life and that of many dozens of people that I talk to would be much less if we had to depend on the big conglomerates to give their highly biased slant among the buzz of inane commercials. With the rise of extremist neocons and fundamentalists in the United States our news continues the warping of our news continues to increase. I think the country would rise in arms if we no longer had access to public broadcasting. There is nowhere else that gives us updates of science, news, and art. It is becoming the central hub of American culture. The BBC of America.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:07 PM	PBS Viewer : I fully agree with those who say PBS (and NPR) should have stronger public support; as well as those who say it should be freer of political pressures. Programs enjoyed at our house include NewsHour, Frontline, Bill Moyers, SuperWHY, Fetch, This Old House, some of the local programs,... (and reruns of the weekend painter when I happen in to them...). PBS is the only channel we've setup our television to receive. Increasingly, however, we find ourselves going to our computer to watch television programming. Keep up with putting programs online, PBS, and through as many outlets as possible (iTunes and the rest as well as the website). We'll continue to watch, particularly if we can do so according to our own schedule.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:06 PM	PJ Buckland : Yes PBS is absolutely necessary, where else are there educational programs on television that are available to everyone. Where else can you get in depth unbiased news coverage. After the last 7 years of lack of objective news reporting i am somewhat shocked that the NYT would give this misguided idea space in its publication. I for one owe PBS a debt of gratitude for many years of informed programing and will be a member as long as i am alive. PJB

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:06 PM	Sherry Nelson : My husband and I watch more PBS than any other network. We have found that it challenges our intelligence, our ability to consider opinions that are different from ours and to educate us. We are in our 60's and find that PBS is a joy to watch. We cannot say that about corporate TV. PBS enriches our lives, makes us laugh and Antique Roadshow might be the best entertainment on TV this decade much less this century. So, our answer to the NY Times.."Yes, it is relevant and important." We believe that corporate news is not un-biased. PBS is still a network that believes it's job is to tell the whole story without bias...If the Times does this...then they too would be doing their job. Michael W Nelson and Sherry L Nelson Tualatin OR

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:06 PM	Ellie in Portland : Not enough room to discuss benefits of PBS programs. The News Hour is a wonderful resource which I support with donations and nightly viewing.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:06 PM	Lee and Mike : We enjoy PBS very much,especially the NEWS HOUR,MASTERPIECE THEATER,MYSTERY,and special music performances. We also have enjoyed Ken Burns specials on The War and Baseball.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:05 PM	Malcolm Whatley : In Jefferson's "Bill for establishing religious freedom," he wrote, "That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." In view of much of what is presented on PBS, I'm sure that most people whose politics and cultural values are at all right of center can fairly feel that it doesn't square with Jefferson's dictum that their taxes support "public" television.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:04 PM	Mary G. Johnson : OPB, C-Span and NPR are my communication world and I would be lost without these reliable windows on the world. Sometimes, when I want the very latest News report i go to NPR Online but I really rely on the Lehrer NewsHour for in-depth discussions of issues. You better believe we still need Public Television!!

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:04 PM	Fran Venn : My husband and I are regular nightly viewers of PBS. When we are in out car, we listen to NPR. We find PBS news coverage balanced and fair. It also extends its coverage to other areas, i.e. poetry, art, and music that are often neglected by other stations.Thank you, PBS

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:04 PM	JulieDr. : PBS Newshour is the only place I can go for television news that is not riddled with personal biases and over-the-top sensationalism. The quality of the news is unsurpassed, sophisticated and roundly informative. A world without PBS would be a world full of sound and fury signifying little. A devoted and always PBS watcher.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:04 PM	betty : The programs on PBS do appeal to a smaller audience, but it is that smaller audience that is important to the very fabric of our country. and to the revenue of your advertising supporters.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:03 PM	Karen Jones : Whenever I want to know what the most unpolitical comments about the day's events might be, I go to the Lehrer Report. I watch it nearly every day, and particularly every Friday. I can even get my husband to watch the Lehrer Report. We really appreciate the discussion between Mark Shields and David Brooks--folks from either "side of the aisle." This doesn't even bring into consideration the other hours I watch NPR and listen to National Public Radio. There is literally no other honest, unbiased venue in America. Is it relevant? Absolutely.

Posted: 02/20/08 at 11:02 PM	carolanne : Is it just that I'm old? If not for cspan, I wouldn't have cable; if not for pbs, I wouldn't have a tv. (But I must admit I am possibly Jon Ste