Rupert : I agree with other comments that the offerings on PBS are the only worthwhile shows on TV. My family and I have moved from the NYC area where we watched WLIW, WNET, and Conn. Public TV every evening. Now in Vermont, we watch two PBS stations most evenings. Thank goodness for the British Sit-coms, the Nature Shows, Great Performances, Jim Lehrer, etc. etc. etc. The NY Times should realize that there are many people who do not subscribe to all cable stations, but basic cable for good reception only, and without access to PBS would not have informative shows to watch. It is critical to continue PBS access for seniors shut-in's and the disabled. "Three cheeers to all the PBS stations!"
Paula : Yes, there are hundreds of channels on cable, but the endless scrolling still leaves me with not much to watch. I find myself coming back to PBS for something that isn't mind-numbing. True, PBS could do without the tired britcoms. The value to me in PBS programming is in the news-centered shows such as Frontline. There is truly no other source on TV for objective, in-depth reporting. This is reason enough to keep PBS on the air.
Patricia Clair : The Newshour has provided for many years an important vehicle for me to hear multisided discussions of topics that concern us as a country. The indepth coverage really makes the difference between it and the networks' coverage. The networks don't have the luxury of giving a story ample time to discuss it in depth. I don't like to miss the program. Thanks to them for their great work.
moonscape : i get my news from many different sources, but the newshour is central to my efforts to find balanced coverage. i've been a viewer since watching robert mcneil's 30-minute news show in nyc (but am far from being in assisted living!)
i watch a number of things on PBS and disagree that there are easy replacements for that programming.
Richard Shaffer : First and foremost: I absolutely refuse to return to watching Network news or to pay the cable company for the journalistic wastelands of CNN/FOX etc. NEWSHOUR is the only consistently respectable nightly news- and this country would be twice as ignorant as it is without NEWSHOUR. There can be no substitute for NEWSHOUR's honest commitment to journalistic craft, certainly not on the corporate mouthpiece news where it is more important for star commentators to tell you what they think rather than do the work to expose the facts so that viewers can form an intelligent opinion. I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN WHO IN ANY WAY THREATENS THE CONTINUATION OF NEWSHOUR, AND IN MOST CASES WILL CONTRIBUTE AND WORK AGAINST ANY WHO DO. Moyers Journal is also worth paying for, and Bill makes no bones about identifying his political stripe. Many years ago, we used to have Bill Buckley on PBS every week- a different stripe, but intellectually as stimulating and relevant. But none of these can get with the game show atmosphere that the corporate broadcasters have decided we deserve instead of facts and context. It is truly sad though, once you get past News Hour, Moyers, Washington Week and Frontline (there's a PBS program that started slow but has come on like gangbusters in the past two years)our local PBS fare is sorely lacking. How many times will they run their damn "DooWhop" show? I assume that the money for revitalizing other PBS programming is sorely lacking and it is reflected in the viewership and individual contributions. Whatever the solution is, NEWS HOUR must be preserved at all costs. And don't get me started against any threats to NPR, the cultural and information center of the American universe.
Corinne B Livesay : When times get tough, cut back mentality sets in. However, this is the time when unbiased information is most critical to the public. We are losing our newspapers and great journalists, but the investigative reporting, and diversity of views by knowlegable experts lives on with public broadcasting. It is truly a treasure to be preserved for freedom's sake.
rosimori : Please, please don't deprive us of the finest most intelligent news broadcasting out there in the jungle. This program is one I have looked forward to everyday for years!!!
Greg and Stephanie Martin : We look to PBS for credible news coverage, tasteful entertainment, for knowledge that helps us understand and appreciate the world in which we live. We very much need PBS.
Anne Park : PBS is a national treasure. Year after year,the good folks at PBS continue to do an amazingly high quality job with only a shoe string of a budget.
Our family watches The News Hour every night for the most in depth, highest quality, unbiased news available on the airwaves. Whereas other news programs offer mostly opinions from pundits (who are often poorly informed or biased), The News Hour provides interviews with the actual people making the news or with experts in the given field as well as direct reporting on location.
When we turn on TV at night, we always check PBS first, since that is where we will most likely find programing we want to watch. When one of us is sick, we often turn on TV during the day and watch some of the children's programing in spite of the fact that the youngest member of our family is currently 26 years old. Even for us adults, the children's programing is a treat and makes me yearn for grandchildren so that I can readily justify enjoying Arthur or Caillou or the irreplaceable Mr. Rogers (who more than any one person has positively influenced the direction and development of children's programing in this country). It does my heart good to know that American kids can count on PBS for quality entertainment that promotes their growth and wellbeing.
PBS is one of the few ways that tax dollars have actually benefited me and my family in recent years. We need to budget much more federal funding for PBS, not less. We need to recognize, support, and protect our national treasures.
John : PBS is the only programming worth watching here in South Central Alaska. How can the Times compare such mindless shows as "Gladiators," "Deal or No Deal," or "The Biggest Loser," as shown on NBC, with PBS offerings such as "The Newshour," "Nova," "Now," or "Frontline?" Commercial TV is an embarrassment to our nation, having turned us into materialistic zombie morons. PBS is the ONLY programming that stimulates the mind and doesn't feed us drivel.
Sara Mae werner : Pbs is our primary source of news, political comment and all things relevant to life in these United States. To get all of this pertinent information with the least possible advertising is worth the world. There is no other source that compares.
Kathy : Good Grief!
Without the gift of Public Television, Americans would be firmly in the grip of the greedy, lusty, Corporate Media whose mission statement seems to be rooted in dumbing down the American viewer. There are way too many moments these days when I cannot recognize my country. This sorrowful sense of estrangement is rooted in the kind of cover-up and openly corporate-supportive programming available on the cable and "major" networks. Public Television and Public Radio alert us to the cover-ups, the squandering of America's position of moral and political leadership. I have often thought that PBS and Public Radio are the Voice of America to us in the U.S., like the VofA was a breath of fresh air to those huddled behind the Iron Curtain years ago. What in the world would we do without PBS and Public Radio? We need to support both in a big way! Kathy K., Bainbridge Island
N Kytle : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is reason enough to fund PBS as it's the only real news on TV. But if you need more reasons: Many of us (taxpayers) find PBS programming a welcome relief when the only programs on the other several hundred channels are "reality" shows; half-hour "comedies" based on bathroom humor or sexual orientation; documentaries based on 7th grade textbooks; and "gritty" dramas based on buckets of blood and gore. PBS programming does often tend toward the musty-dusty. But many of us find a little dust preferable to the slimy-grimy garbage offered by the rest of the vast waste disposal land of TV.
Ellen : I look forward to my evenings with The News Hour. The tone and discourse is calm and enlightening and lacks the shouting and hype found on commercial programs. The stories are covered indepth so you have an understanding of the issues. I appreciate PBS and The News Hour for their committment to quality programming. I can't imagine life without it.
David Rawn : Almost the only program I ever watch is The News Hour. No news program on any other network even remotely approaches its high journalistic standards, detailed analysis, and balanced coverage of controversial issues (which means more or less all issues). PBS is most assuredly well worth the investment -- tiny by any standard --required for its continued operation.
PatrickT : I have been watching the NewsHour for over 20 years. It is, by far, the best news and current affairs program in North America. It is the only place to get get balanced, reasoned and informed discussions on current events or historical issues. It would be a disgrace to allow such quality programming to be hollowed out by thin-skinned politicians and thick-headed corporate barons.
Margaret Jess : Please, the NYT almost got it right--what PBS and esp. The NewsHour need is a lot more funding--not less.There are hundreds of channels available to me but only one--PBS--that I watch regularly because it's the only one that does insult me or threaten my family. NOPR's good but pictures sometimes make better sense. More public funds for public broadcasting!
Sid : An informed populace is essential to preserving a strong democracy. It is not essential to preserving single party political states nor to promoting the interests of multinational corporations. It should not be any suprise then that our current government wants to cut funding and the New York Times is promoting the position of its corporate owners. As long as there is PBS and NPR there remains one voice that reminds us that all others are certainly not fair and balanced.
Schatz : Years ago we used to spend a few days in the "boonies" and watch TV at night. We thought it was awful and felt sorry for the viewers out there. Presently the private channels, unbelievably, in the NY area, provide viewing that is worse-what we call garbage-and, we think, a main reason for the lack of respect for others, while contributing to a reduced level of performance in our school system and a lack of inspiration that fosters an emotional low. Our personal favorites are the News Hour, Washington Week and Bill Moyers. PBS is our only hope amid the wasteland of ALL the other TV channels.
Erin : The NYT article seems to assume that everyone wants to spend hundreds of dollars on cable t.v. PBS and the Newshour are the best things going on the free, PUBLIC airwaves. I agreed with one point, they should get more money, not less, from the federal government.
Wally Oliver : The News Hour is the only program which has the time and inclination to report issues fully. It is sad that other news organizations show bias and/or incompetence, and have so little time dedicated to do more than short "sound bites", but until that changes, we NEED PBS more than ever.
Adriana : Mr. McGrath’s piece “Is PBS Still Necessary?” presents a compelling argument for increasing the budget for PBS not cutting it. If there were more support for PBS, they could make more of those “few and far in between” great programs we were once used to have. The “mustiness” that Mr. McGrath refers to is a product of both budget cuts and the Corporation for Public Broadcast being run by the same people who advocate the cuts hoping to eliminate PBS all together. We need more not less programs like The News Hour, outstanding on its own right but especially so when compared with the “private sector” news programs. Great programming with no commercial interruption available to everyone has no competition!
lavina dunne : The News Hour w/Jim Leher is relevent to this household. The way it tries to present both aspects to an issue by using two or more viewpoints on its in depth segments is unique in the news market of reporters and commentators who no longer present unbiased coverage but let their own or their bosses' opinions marginalize the news and shape what we hear. Arthur Hailey's novel, The Evening News, was written 20 years ago but is alive and well today on television. The News Hour is one of the very few that has kept its integrity.
Albert Sanchez Moreno : Mr. Charles McGrath, the author of the article, obviously has no appreciation of the value of PBS, or of "The News Hour", for that matter. He forgets that PBS is available, not only on cable, but on regular network television, and free to the average viewer. By contras, programs like "Nature" and "The Tudors" are only available to cable subscribers. He completely neglects to mention classical music programs such as "Live from Lincoln Center" or "Live from the Met",two invaluable series which educate the public about the great music of the masters - a public that largely believes that rock and country music are the only kinds of music worth bothering about.
I am a regular viewer of the News Hour, and I can safely say that it is one of the few news-oriented programs on the air that never resorts to sensationalism (unlike CNN) or panders to the viewer, something that Mr. McGrath conveniently overlooks.
If there is any network that is vitally necessary to television, it is PBS.
Adriane : When I watch the NewsHour, I feel that I'm part of a diverse audience united by both a certain intellectual honesty and a belief that an understanding of our world is essential to the success of our democracy. The members of this audience don't agree about everything, or perhaps even most things, but we know the complexities of life can't be reduced to tickertape at bottom of a tv screen. Jim Lehrer, Judy Woodruff, Margaret Warner, Jeffrey Brown, and the rest of the fine NewsHour staff consistently display the most marvelous respect for the guests they interview as well as for the audience they serve every night. Where but on PBS do we routinely see this kind of committment to coverage of multiple sides of an issue?
Matthew Oregon : I think PBS sets the standard for what televison programing should be, particularly in the news and information area. The News Hour is the only worth while news program on in the weekly evening news time, I would not change a thing! PBS is the only news and information outlett that I believe trully informs, and does so with an even handedness. As a side note, my 25 yr. old son watches PBS and listens to NPR, and has since high school - so it's not just older people who listen and benifit from PBS and NPR.
I would also add that NPR provides wonderful programing, and is deserving of praise. Both PBS and NPR deserve increased federal funding, not the attempts that have been made to remove funding. I am a loyal listener, and contributor.
j.knoll : I am a news junkie so I watch CNN, MSNBC, etc. and read the NYT and WPost, etc. I find the media's coverage of the election exhausting: too detailed and repetitive. Frankly, with all of its virtues, the News Hour is getting to be a bore. NPR is much better these days.
Wyoming : I've been watching the "McNeil-Lehrer" Newshour since it was known by the double name. I've lived in various places in the West and where ever I went, the Newshour would be there on a local PBS station. As far as unbiased news goes, I've yet to figure out if Jim Lehrer is a Democrate or Rebpulican! I love the Friday wrap-up with Shields and Brooks. We know which side of the fence they are on! What other news program is giving such dedicated, respectful coverage of the war in Iraq and how it is affecting the home front than the Honor Roll of deceased armed service personnel? Whenever I turn on the Newshour, I can count on getting both sides of an issue. I know I am sounding like a pledge drive now, so I'll quit, but not before I add my voice to those who want to see PBS stay on the air.
Lin Zucconi :
I was dismayed by Charles McGrath's article "Is PBS Still Necessary?" in Sunday NY Times' Arts & Leisure (really should've been in Opinion). PBS is very relevant. All of those hundreds of other satellite and cable TV networks such as Discovery, Showtime and History, present dumbed-down and Hollywooded-up science, history and drama shows. None of which are near the caliber, depth and quality of PBS's NOVA, Masterpiece, Mystery, NOW, Frontline, POV and other presentations.
PBS is very relevant and suffers primarily because short-sighted politicians in Washington who refuse to appreciate its true worth and fund it accordingly.For this reason PBS's local affiliates have been forced to spend large portions of their on-air time fund raising and rerunning old shows. PBS is the only presenter of consistently high quality news, drama, science and history shows amongst the hundreds of broadcast and cable/satellite networks I receive over my satellite system.
PBS is necessary if we are to have any hope of maintaining a well-informed scientifically, politically and historically literate populace. With little exception everything else on TV is garbage.
George : The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and Washington Week offer balanced journalism usually offering both sides of the issues. Plus, the Frontline series should be picked up by mainstream TV and Cable on critical everyday events such as Iraq, Iran's story, Bush administration, etc. It's imperative for a democracy to have knowledgable informed voters, and PBS provides this information...
Martina Follansbee : Hi PBS,
Re the NY Times article on your relevance, there is just no better news show on TV. I try to make a point of being home by 6pm to watch it. If I miss it I have to watch the other stuff. You present depth to the current news and don't spend time on sensational "news." Enough already with Britney - her situation is tragic but I don't need to invade her life on an hour by hour basis!!
I look forward to Jim Lehrer and love his interaction with all the guests & stories and especially with Brooks & Shields who are a trip in themselves. And, Guen Ifil is great on The News Hour and also on her show, Washington Week (which I also look forward to). Keep it up.
Tina Follansbee
sharon : for profit cable news thrives on ratings. If competition is supposed to eliminate mediocrity it doesn't do that in this arena; instead, opinion is favored over fact, claims are exaggerated, and the rush to be first results in frequent errors in reporting. PBS remains totally necessary to offset the worst of these problems. Thank you for your news division!
Judy Barmann : Public Television is THE worthwhile network, especially in our non-cable household. So much about commercial programing is just wrong, and awful. I appreciate PBS for it's dedication to quality and fairness and for believing there are still some in the viewing public with a brain and an interest in current events and real news. Thank you, PBS.
William P. Wallace : I can't believe that we have to go through this discussion and argument about the merits of PBS again. It has proven itself consistently and completely every year. In these years of earmarks which are distributed around by the president and the Congress, it does not make sense to question the relatively small amounts involved in funding PBS. We must keep up the pressure to contiue this important funding.
Diana : The only reason I signed up for cable television was to watch the NewsHour. It is such a pleasure to listen to intelligent discussion rather than the shouting of opinionated hosts. With more money PBS could afford more shows. The New York Times article was shallow and insulting.
Dave M : I look towards programs like the News Hour to keep the flame of true journalism burning. There is enough agenda-driven or ratings-oriented spin to be had from just about every other media source. The Times has long been seen as an organization which has refused to kowtow to the right-wing, so I do not believe the article was motivated by any bias or malice for/against PBS or its News Hour show. It was just an editorial, and if its purpose was to encourage debate, it has more than served its purpose.
swalzer : Should PBS not be available it would be difficult for us to find anything to see on TV that would be worth the time. A cut in public funding would deal a devastating blow to our culture and our country.
Audrey : Dear PBS, Please, oh please, do not go off the air! Our democracy needs our public station. Our good taste, our good sense and our sensibilities absolutely need PBS to continue. We need the news as delivered by Jim Leher on the News Hour, the interviews as conducted by Charlie Rose and the countless delightful, artistic and educational programs you offer. Without you, we would be a people starving for your kind of 'heart/mind/soul food'! You are the best thing on television! Please don't go away! Thank you, Audrey
Steve, N.Y. : The Jim Lehrer News hour and Nova are the only TV shows on my "can't miss" list.In an era where Fox openly presents news with an agenda,and where corporate media consolidation eliminates diversity of opinion,the "News Hour" is the only news I trust to be presented without a bias. Viva PBS!
Nancy : PBS irrelevant? To whom? NYT executives? You can generally recognize people who don't watch PBS by the way they backpedal slightly and play the "wonderful childrens programing" card when PBS defenders react to their words.
It is their loss. They could be watching
"Frontline" "Nova" "Science Now" "Independent Lens" "Nightly News Hour" "American Experience" or any of the myriad fine programs aired on PBS instead of the mindless junk that fills a 24 hr period on commercial channels. (Apologies to the History Channel..I didn't mean you fine folks.)
I and millions like me support PBS financially, but it is not enough. A government should encourage a thirst for knowledge and understanding in its citizens and supporting PBS does just that.
Helena Freeman : The New York Times is asking the wrong question. Instead, they should be asking if it and Charles McGrath are really neccessary. I live very well with them. PBS however, is a national treasure. How craven of The Times, they appear to know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Long live Jim Lehrer, Nova, Frontline et al and no, I'm not in "a care facility"
Harold : I think the News Hour makes a unique contribution to my understanding of current events. The indepth coverage of significant (not froth)topics of the day far surpasses anything on network or cable. Further, the presentations are not interrupted or even overwhelmed by mindless commercials. The NY Times writer just does not "get it" in his criticisms of the News Hour. I hope that I will be able to continue to get the program--with two or three views on most controversial issues.
neil Redlien : I watch the Jim Leherer Hour faithfully every night it is on. If I go away I record it so I will not miss one show. Except for other PBS broadcasts like "frontline" and Bill Moyers, it is the only place to get exceptional in-depth anlysis and discourse. PBS is the only place you can say "quality television" is not an oxymoron. If they took away PBS, I would cancel my cable.
Sirk : I Love PBS and (I may add) NPR .... both are very important parts of my day ...
would be lose without them both .... high standards
Class work ... realively free of nosie ... intelligent .... very well done ... employ great talent ... he and shoulders above most of the other similar Media (which, as ah rule, Sucks) ...
at least PBS NPR (MPB) and Cspan 1,2 3,4, 5 etc has some that resembles CONTENT .....
PLease encourage People to Keep their hands off ...
so many qualities I have not the time to count ,
I send them money all the time ...
PBS, NPR, .... PLEASE KEEP UP THE GREAT WERK
THANK YOU
ah
KAZILLION TIMES
Meg : The Lehrer News Hour,Washington Week, Bill Moyers, Masterpiece ... this is available elsewhere? Is the Times kidding? PBS is a national treasure as are NPR and C-Span. Even if we watcher/listeners may be barely above 1%, we're faithful and appreciative. And we vote!
barbara andic : PBS is a jewel. Every teacher knows this: e.g., PBS brings us free children's programming that one can recommend without reservation: programming that's well-designed, healthful, educational and pleasurable.... Americans need to remember that not everyone has [or can afford] cable TV; that commercial children's programs are for the most part both exploitative and disgusting. PBS has for decades now provided the very best in entertainment and education -- not only for adults, with comic, historical and dramatic series of serious merit -- but for children.
The attempts of a succession of
Republican 'Administrations' to injure PBS, are the shameful, selfserving acts of people who resent truthtelling, for obvious reasons.
Thank you, PBS!
Beverly : The News Hour is a true national treasure. It is balanced, informative, not insulting of our intelligence and unusually civil. My day would be seriously diminished without it.
Joanne : News programs like the News Hour, Frontline, and Frontline World allow residents in remote locations such as rural Alaska access to unbiased news. Likewise PBS science and nature programs provide a visual appreciation of diverse cultures and environments everywhere on the planet. Bill Moyers and NOW interview have featured diverse opinions.
Barry : The "News Hour" and "Washington Week In Review" are the only truly informative and reliably objective news and commentary programs in all of TV Land. I depend upon them for my daily and weekly summary and discussion of the major events of the day. They would not be possible on reguarl commercial TV. This is one of many reasons that PBS is justified and must be continued.
Charles Waldren : If PBS irrelevant because its audience is rather small and perhaps 'select' then so is the New York Times. True the proliferation of channels gives us more choices some of which compete with those of PBS, but PBS is still the gold standard for thoughtful and unbiased reporting and programing. And, besides the national program, the local stations provide great stuff as well but judging by the comments in the Times, perhaps the New York Station is not so good at this? as some more provincial stations? Finally, I'm not convinced that logevity equals irrelevance as the NYT piece implies.
So, NYT and PBS: Keep up the good work.
Mary P Fontaine : I must add my 2 cents to what everyone is saying. The Newshour is the daily newscast in our home. The news analysis is always balanced and civil. Our favorite is the analysis of Shields and Brooks. Also,in what other news program would you get interviews with poets, playwrights, and others in the arts?
Porter : I too would echo what others have said--PBS offers the only programming worth watching and the best source of balanced news coverage. Unbelievable the New York Times would suggest otherwise. I rely on the News Hour and NPR for all of my information and applaud the staff of both for the continuing exceptional quality.
Barbara Green : Public television and radio are far superior in quality to anything else available. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer leads the way, but it has plenty of company. The opportunity to have sensible and trained people conduct interviews of substance is irreplaceable. "Viewers like us" are willing to subscribe to this service, but some public support is crucial as well.
Judy Lang : Were PBS to disappear, I would have no reason to watch TV for news or documentaries. Your fans (and supporters) remain convinced of your relevance.
Alejandro Herrera : The only thing wrong with PBS is that it has been a political target of the Bush administration, and also the fact that the Corporation for Public broadcasting has been run by unfriendly Republicans allied with Bush and Cheney’s ideology. PBS has been under attack for the last ten or fifteen years for being perceived without any foundation as a liberal biased media. It is a miracle that we can still enjoy many of the PBS informative and enlightening programs. Such enlightened information is an important component of the intellectual and emotional life of the citizens of this nation.
eileen lombardi : I found PBS by "accident" in 1995 when I was starting out and unable to afford cable television. I loved the Antiques Road Show, and soon came to discover The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. I knew very little about world affairs and the major issues facing the U.S., and I was drawn in by the many-faceted positions presented. I became a faithful News Hour watcher and looked forward to Shields and Gigot (and Brooks), Richard Rodriguez and Roger Rosenblat, the many gifted poets from the Poetry Project, Michael Beschloss and the Presidential Historians. I learned so much from listening to Margaret Warner frame her skillful questions and really came to look forward to Ray Suarez' interviews. I could go on and on about the "regulars" and the guests I have come to respect and admire. Thanks to the News Hour, I can converse intelligently about many major world issues and current affairs. I also have learned to welcome points of view different than my own, and have broadened and changed my mind on a number of issues because of the information I've been given through the News Hour. Jim Lehrer's age does not make him or his show "irrelevant." His wisdom and skill and genuine good will toward people is what makes the News Hour such a class act. And on a funnier note: one recent evening I was watching election returns on network television when my five-year-old son came downstairs in his pajamas. He said, "Are you watching the news?" And I said I was. Then he said, "Where's Jim Lehrer?" I had to smile. The News Hour is the only news program he's ever seen. Our government spends its money on many less worthy causes than PBS. I can recommend more than a few better places to begin with budget cuts.
Nancy Crooker : The Jim Lehrer News Hour is one of the most welcome parts of my daily routine. Compared to other news sources on TV, it is the only outlet for civilized discourse. Other sources are too tainted with vitriol.
Tray : I am sure that these sentiments have been said numerous times already but I would like to say that PBS is the only television news station I trust and I get much of my news off of its website. Furthermore, their programs are insightful and culturally fulfilling. I would be irate if for some reason PBS and The NewsHour stopped broadcasting. It is the only station on TV that doesn't saturate its viewers with meaningless human interest pieces on 'celebrities' and 'shock-news' stories. I am ashamed that the NYTimes wrote this piece.
Bill McKee : It would appear by questioning the continued exsistance of PBS that corporate controlled media and the Republicans (Bush) must feel threatened. Having the Republicans in charge of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. PBS is one of the few remaining bastions of the free press. Without PBS democracy as we know it would suffer. The Evening News with Jim Lehrer is unbiased, in-depth and without a doubt the best source of world news. Where would we be with-out Nova, Frontline, Bill Moyers Journal, Washington Week, Etc. PBS Kids is the only clean, nonviolent programming my wife and I allow our grandchildren watch when with us. Are there problems with PBS? Most definatly Yes! Is change needed? Yes! No other TV media will fill its shoes should we lose PBS. I will personally fight to keep PBS with US now and in the future.
Cynthia Hauser : I watch the News Hour with Jim Leher and appreciate the in depth format, but just as importantly the interview method where you actually allow each person to speak without interruption and without shouting. Keep it up and let's hope that PBS continues.
Jane Boone : Not only is PBS relevant, it is now more important than ever! I depend almost totally on the News Hour for accurate, timely, unbiased information on the days events and for keeping abreast of the arts and science. My primary TV use is PBS.
Jan Schmitz : You should see the local news programs. All announced with great enthusiasm! "Two murders! a bank robbery and police chase! Tonight on..." How would we ever find out who is winning in the primaries without the Jim Lehrer News Hour? BBC gives so much international news in thirty minutes, with a view to wide ranging political issues. Don't even think the announcement of independence by Kosovo ever reached this city in any local venue. Now matter how many channels you may have, there is nothing to watch. Most cable is impossible to afford other than the basic package. Even with dish or satellite all you can see is celebrities, house decorating, game shows, cooking, soap operas, a nature show (of animals eating each other) that is not really science, cartoons (some of which are about hurting someone mentally or physically) and not funny. Please. We need PBS with Masterpiece Theater, Science with Nova, travel on Globe Treckker, Frontline, Ken Burns, Independent Lens and more!!! In the dumbed down middle of America there is great social deprivation. TV can play a role in presenting a better way to solve many problems. Plus, interesting movies, political views, travel or a way of showing the larger world out there. After this long period of destructive cuts in programing, by the Republicans, I had hoped that funding for PBS would be fully restored and expanded.
donelan : If the Newshour was as sloppy as Charles McGrath, I'd stop listening. Now, after McGrath's diabribe, I will stop reading the NYTimes and instead invest the dollers in PBS.
Sandi : My comment would be "Is the New York Times Still Necessary?" Or any of the other networks for that matter. PBS is the only network that I'm aware of that reports the news - not give personal opinions on issues or slanted views. And the interviews are simply splendid and very informative. My 82-year old father doesn't watch any other news station other than yours.
Neil M : PBS is one of the few sources of news and entertainment that is relevant. Network programs have gone downhill and cable news is often very biased.
The "News Hour" is one of few reliable places to get good comprehensive news.
Chris Comte : Oh.. the thought of TV without PBS scares me. I consider the rest of the offerings on TV to be close to trash. If the programs are worth watching at all, they are so filled with commercials that viewig becomes a chore. We are so material minded- driven in part by the TV culture which makes use think we need to live the fast life and have everything to be happy-- PBS offers us enriching entertainment, enjoyment of the arts and news we can count on to be accurate and presented from various points of view. If PBS disappears I will also - into the woods!
Bernard Le Roy : NPR consistently provides in-depth coverage of literary, historical, and current topics delivered by qualified, degreed experts in the fields in which they speak that cannot be found elsewhere in the news media. We find NPR amazingly balanced in its coverage.
FRANK : Wideangle, Frontline, Nova, and most importantly, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer are just about the only things worth watching on TV. Network TV is just one idiotic freak show after another. I really like reading the NY Times, but I'd give it up in a second to keep the Jim Lehrer News Hour.
Jeff : PBS is the one shining gem in an empty sea of television garbage. Frontline, The News Hour, and Charlie Rose are the most informative and imaginative programming we can see. Shame on you NY Times.
chatham nc : Thomas Jefferson wrote: "When people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government." Should our government pay for informative, thought provoking television? I would say YES, and it seems Thomas Jefferson would agree! I listen to many sources of news, making an effort to hear from the far right, from the center and from the far left. PBS is the place I go to for balance.
Another note--Our local PBS station provides the best available coverage of our State Legislature and of issues facing our State...can't get that on CNN or on any of the local news channels, which seem to prefer stories on car crashes and dog rescues!
Lyla Yaroshuk : PBS have the only programming worth watching. I can't imagine being without it. I guess I would give up TV altogether. I am a fan of the news hour, the only place to get news in depth. There are so many shows I enjoy, It would take up a lot of space to list them all. It would be a sad day for me if there was no PBS.
R. Doucet : The Newshour is the best, a jewel in a TV landcape filled with entertainment passing itself off as news. We rely on it. The airwaves belong to the people and we should have MORE public shows and less "reality show" junk. We also enjoy many of the 'classics', history and nature shows broadcast on PBS.
Michael D. Linick : i find PBS to be informative, at times entertaining, and irreplaceable. I frequently watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nova, and Frontline, as well as specials such as the Celtic Women. There is nothing comparable on the major networks as far as in-depth reporting and the dissemination of truthful, educational information. I believe that any person who opposes PBS and the public funding thereof does so merely because he or she disapproves of the subject matter presented in such shows as Frontline. They want to bury their [and our] heads in the sand and not have issues of public interest and importance openly discussed, such as atrocities committed by American troops in Iraq, corruption within our Government, etc. Those who oppose the continuation of public funding to PBS want to have an ignorant, non-questioning, and sheepish citizenry and electorate. I for one wish that i could designate the entire amount of federal income tax that i pay to PBS as it is one of the few worthy uses of public monies by the current administration. Lord knows that the Iraq war, begun with lies and deceit, and costing us thousand upon thousand of lives of American youths and Iraqis, billions of dollars, honor and respect among the international community, etc., is clearly not a worthy use. Indeed, Bush, Cheney and their fellow cronies only were able to start and wage this criminal war because of the American populace's ignorance of the truth. At least PBS is trying to stop the Government from exploiting this ignorance, by enlightening the public. Without PBS, all that would be left is Government propaganda. Love live PBS!
Carolyn Bredenberg : The question of the relevancy of Public Broadcasting is pretty interesting, considering the the organ asking it, like most print and broadcast media today, is merely a carrier for advertising, and, of course, chooses stories of such extreme relevancy to the rest of us as, say, Britney Spears' or Paris Hilton's antics, because it wants to get our attention by appealing to the coarser appetites common to us all in a quest to sell this advertising so that all those in the so-called "news" business can keep their jobs. PBS is in the business of informing Americans about the things that really matter in the world, not only in the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer but in all of its programming. Questioning the relevancy of PBS is a bit like the makers of tv series, ads and movies saying that they don't influence behavior, when that is precisely what they do. I am so glad to have PBS!
stephen butler : PBS has the best programs and news coverage available today. I wonder if the Times has vested interest in other competing networks? Is the Times trying to dissuade us from watching PBS? Don't worry Times, we can make up our own mind without your corporate input.
pzcalc : Suppose we just agree, as nearly everyone seems to do, that the NewsHour is a good and valuable program, and a welcome alternative. Does it follow that the NewsHour deserves *government* funding? Discuss.
Marilyn : It would be a better world if more Americans listened and watched PBS news programs. Instead of a 10 second soundbite, real news is taken seriously and explored whereas the headlines that make up the news on too many other networks buffer the listener/viewer from facts and assume viewers tune in for entertainment. Keep up the good work - the News Hour, Bill Moyers, Nova, Morning Edition, All Things Considered and, for entertainment, Mystery and Masterpiece Theater are superb. I am disappointed NY Times is even questioning the relevance.
P Shafer : PBS and NPR are more necessary to me than the NY Times - I cancelled my subscription to that paper years ago. My primary sources of news are the Newshour, Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and BBC World. Keep up the good work!
jack : where else but on pbs can you witness accomplished professionals pursuing their craft without the adolescent self-congratulation that is at the heart of commercial tv these days. Viva Lehrer!!
jontpt : The New Hour is the only real news program left on TV, and certainly the only one that provides consistent, non-tabloid programming, so endemic on all other broadcasts. No one complained about Cronkite's age (except the morons who pressured him to step down), so Jim Lehrer's, Cronkite's last successor, is a complete non-issue. This persistent idea that youth somehow defines quality is completely ridiculous. Btw, his grammar is also impeccable, unlike the Times author's: "There were only three networks, and none of them were known..." It's "was known," Chuck. After you've completed a remedial English course, get back to us with further nonsense.
Liz Cloutier : The NewsHour is just about the only news our family watches. Your presentation of "both sides of the picture" often prompts comments like, "I never thought about it that way..." Your commentators and anchors are professional, not giving way to inappropriate joking among themselves as is the case on so many other news programs. Thanks for not dumbing down.
Allyson Kissell : PBS has been an important part of my family's life since my first child was born 35 years ago. We watch the News Hour every day to be sure we're getting the real news. If there are areas needing updating, then PBS should get more funding, not less.
Pragmatus : One last set of remarks from me.
The NYT article bemoans the lack of energy and initiative in PBS programming, while pointing out that PBS funding has been under severe attack for many years. (Remember Newt Gingrich, when he tried to cut all government funding for PBS, saying “We will destroy their world”?) Yet the article writer can’t seem to put the two together—if there is a lack of imagination in PBS programming, it’s a direct result of the dearth of funds imposed by an ever-increasingly parsimonious Congress. Duh! The article writer also complains about the ads which PBS has been forced to accept if it wants to stay alive—well, if the money from the government dries up, where else would the writer suggest it come from?
The programming/viewership problems at PBS are a direct result of a systematic strangulation that has been going on for decades. If there is a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress elected this fall, perhaps, at long last, we can reverse this trend. At its most extravagant, yearly public spending on PBS has amounted to less money that it takes to fill the fuel tanks of one Space Shuttle mission. Let that fact sink in a moment. To say that funding for PBS is an extravagance we cannot afford is to misunderstand everything about the human need for culture. I would suggest, urge, beg, nag everybody to write your Congresspersons about the need to restore adequate funding to public programming, and start writing today. Alone of all the major industrialized countries, public broadcasting in the U.S. has to literally go begging for the funds to survive. This is beyond disgraceful—it is a secular sin.
PBS isn’t in trouble—the entirety of American civilization is.
Chris Schneider : The News Hour is clearly the most thorough and objective news program currently available on television. As many have noted, other television news programs instead focus on what is most entertaining (or easily sensationalized), rather than what is most important. Like other PBS programs that delve into controversial subjects, The News Hour takes great pains to acknowledge even the appearance of potential conflicts of interest. I watch this program several times each week, constituting the majority of my television viewing.
I will certainly admit to a lifetime love affair with science, but I consider NOVA the best program that has ever come to television. Even among science programs (most of which are found on PBS, by the way), NOVA is a clear standout. In the current climate of scientific obfuscation (much of it perpetrated by our own government and facilitated through the lack of journalistic integrity pervasive in other American media), excellent mainstream scientific television programming is a valuable resource indeed. It would appear that the National Science Foundation shares both my opinion of NOVA and of the political challenges faced by mainstream science.
I certainly enjoy many other PBS programs from time to time (e.g., Nature, Frontline, and The American Experience). However, if both The News Hour and NOVA disappeared, I would immediately cancel my cable subscription.
TA Bran, SF, CA : The NewsHour (on PBS) is my preferred source of daily news. The depth and range of coverage of National and International news packed into their one hour slot is far superior to any of the 24-hour news networks. Finally, the journalistic professionalism of the NewsHour staff stands in stark contrast to the entertainment-focused announcers that dominate the commercial networks.
Connie : Obviously, my earlier comment was too narrowly directed when I only praised the News Hour and not PBS in general. PBS is the most watched channel in our home along with TCM. The quality programs available on PBS, particularly Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, The New Hour, and the special live performances frequently offered, are far superior to most other networks, except perhaps some of the offerings of high priced premium cable channels. PBS is essential viewing in our home and has been since the mid-70's, when we first subscribed to cable just so we could receive clearer reception of our local public broadcasting channel. I never regret submitting my annual membership to our local station and only wish I could afford to make a greater contribution.
Elaine Blanchard : Jim looks good and sounds great and does the News with the whole News Hour group to my personal liking! The other programs mentioned in the Times article could change, BUT not having the News Hour would be a genuine loss to nightly news reporting!
Evelyn : I do agree that there is too much on PBS that is not as good as it might be (ballroom dancing and some of the music shows are good examples). However, cable certainly does not replace PBS. Essentially cable is a wasteland. There are a few bright spots in the cable landscape BUT there is no Newshour, Frontline or Bill Moyers on cable television. Cable, though it can still be high quality is still a commercial entity and will not ever have the kind of news shows that PBS does. Further, in this age, when 20% of the American population thinks that the sun revolves around the earth, we'd better hold on to the few informative programs we have. There's nothing wrong with good cable TV or great public radio. And the medium of TV itself may be nearing the end of it's life span - but please, let's not lose this incredibly valuable asset.
ron : One word, 'Frontline', main stream media could never develop such an outstanding program - they would buckle under political pressure and bury it - keep up these great programs - this isn't JUST about how many are watching - it's about QUALITY PROGRAMS, You know that when the government is trying to cancel PBS - PBS must be doing something right. Keep on trucking, well done!
Judy : PBS has always been the only station our family watches. The rest are simply too shallow for words. Why would I waste any time on stations that have such a biased and crass view of the world? PBS, especially the news, documentaries, and specials are outstanding and thought provoking. We come away with more questions instead of "easy answers" which fir corporate America's world view.
Carl : My wife and I watch the NewsHour every weekday night. If we miss the televised program we listen to it the next hour on Classical WETA. We would miss the concerns, the balanced presentation, the fullness of the coverage deeply if there were no NewsHour. The program is unmatched in excellence and interest.
Farhad Moshiri : The only source I use to get the news every day is NPR and PBS News Hour. Please keep them both for serious people like me. Those who think news is what brand is Britney's underwear can use other sources.
AW : What is making PBS irrelevant is its national fair weather theme and its failure to conform to local disaster announcements, like hurricane or tornado warnings or attacks on buildings like the World Trade Center. If the Federal government is to support this network, PBS should conform to rules that govern other stations. Viewers will continue to tune in to both cable and on the air broadcasts that serve the people and not an agenda. Don't get caught watching PBS when your house is about to blow away!
Katherine Rollins : The Newshour is excellent. I am sorry there is still a question about the value of PBS. People extol the virtues of public private partnership but apparently that is just rhetoric. I will send my representative a note.
Bruce Linn : If Mr. McGrath had any concept of what PBS has to offer, he could not write such an article, unless of course, he is one of those haters who have been trying for many years close PBS down. I suggest that he should look at one of the thirteen monthly bulletins to get some idea of the incredible value that PBS provides. Also, I am shocked that the Times would publish such an article. I am glad to contribute to both the radio and TV PBS and hope they will always be with us.
Barbara : I grew up with CBS news & only McNeill-Lehrer is an adequate replacement. Unbiased, each subject given thorough coverage, and totally free of advertisements.
J.Mellor : PBS Newshour is the mandatory daily news program at my house.It's adult, HONEST,and not "entertainment" oriented. Opinion is so designated. Guests are questioned intelligently and fairly. Experts are well prepared, truly knowlegable for the most part and chosen for their erudition rather than their fame. The Newshour,"Now", "Frontline","Washington Week" and "Masterpiece Theater" are the largely the reasons I subscribe to PBS. Please continue your great work.
Jim Frankel : Read these arguments ever since Gingrich assault in '95. Some truth but buried are unique properties of PBS. No mention of playroomful of kids' shows, Frontline, music, even diminished opera&classical music performances. Lehrer insulted by age remark; unique quality of NewsHour unmatched by other news shows save perhaps BBCAmerica. I have benefit of hundreds channels, but my home bases are WGBH-Boston & C-Span. Praise lord & contributors for PBS.
MBC : I watch the network nightly news and am amazed by the lack of true content - esp with all the drug company ads slivering away at the actual time devoted to news delivery. I then watch the News Hour and there is no comparison. So much of what this country is about is being controlled and bought up by large corporations and media giants, we need something that is free from that grasp. That said, some of the "ads" on PBS are from questionable sources as well....... Hopefully, PBS can still deliver content without the worry about what a corporate sponsor might object to. Please be careful - we will go to bat for the News Hour, Washington Week etc. but we ask that PBS take great care in preserving the integrity of the broadcast as well.
DaveR : My personal homepage is www.bbc.co.uk because outside of the News Hour, Bill Moyers and Frontline on PBS I cannot find anything but propaganda as news on television. If the show on PBS isn't anything we want to see, we turn off the TV and listen to the radio or maybe watch a NetFlix dvd.
Matthew Ackerman : The Times could only cast aspersions on the Newshour as a means to generate heat, not as a genuine comment on the state of contemporary teleivision media. The Newshour presents the day's most important news stories - both domestic and international - with grace and objectivity in a manner that challenges the viewer's intellect and treats its guests and subjects with respect. While other news shows exult in broadcsting shouting matches between talking heads with little more expertise in their subject than the ability to put on their own TV makeup, the Newshour strives, every night, to bring to the air true experts on the relevant news of the day from oppositte sides of the issues who can (and who would have thought we were still capable of as much!) debate one another with mutual respect and civility. Whether the moderator is Jeffrey Brown, Gwen Iffil, Margaret Warner, Judy Woodruff, Ray Suarez, or Jim Lehrer, the questions posed to these individuals are always designed to cut to the relevant heart of an issue, not instigate guests to heated rhetoric. All this, and without commercials! Perhaps there was a time when broadcast journalism in America regularly met the standards of today's Newshour, but in the 30 years since I was born I have seen it nowhere else. The Newshour is, in short, a national treasure; its producers and staff are deserving of congressional medals; it is a nightly dose of all that is great about our national aspirations and about the idea that is America, and we would all be much poorer without it. If the New York Times does not realize that, then it is its worth that should be questioned, not the Newshour.
Roxanne : Since I do not subscribe to cable or satellite I rely on Public Television for more in depth news reporting. I love Bill Moyers Journal especially. I spend time each day watching the News Hour and time each week with a variety of other programming. It is extremely important to me to continue to have broad and unbiased viewpoints expressed and in some depth.
Kellen : PBS is all I watch. I don't even have expanded cable, just the 10 basic channels. I consider PBS an oasis and essential. That said, I read the NYTimes article and I feel they have fairly stated some facts. PBS need more support from us, the viewers. I also hear a challenge in the article. There are amazing programs that are waiting to be created and PBS is in the best position, with our continued and increasing support, to exponentially bloom. I got rid of cable and those dollars go to PBS.
Mary Mazur : What a dissapointing viewpoint the NYT expressed. Clearly the author does not watch very much of PBS. I reoommend he watch the Lehrer News Hour for breadth and depth not seen elsewhere, the Charlie Rose show for discusion of many controversial and important, interteresting topics, Nove, Nature, Frontline, Washington Week (absolutely up-to-the-minute, Nightly Business report, Bill Moyers, Great Performances and on and on--and the American Experience. I think its stime the New York Times made sure its commentators know what they are talking about before the recommend that PBS be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Without Public Broadcasting the US would be deprived of its greatest asset for informing the public.
Bruno : Jim, Could not live without the News Hour and other PBS broadcasting. CNN and other commercial news broadcasts only provide sound bites without detailed in-depth coverage of the topic. I support PBS! Best, Regards.
Constance Witt : The first thought that comes to mind is: "How dare the New York Times!" There is no other news show on the air that is as relevant as the News Hour. I rely heavily on the New Hour and NPR for in depth reporting and, thankfully, without the constant interruption and repetition of the commercials on other networks. Thank you to the entire staff of the News Hour, reporters and support personnel alike.
Ex-marine : My wife and I are in our 70s and are dedicated watchers of the entire range of PBS programs. Th Lehrer News hour is, without doubt, the best news show on any network and its in-depth coverage of foreign affairs makes it a national treasure. I can only imagine that the Times' piece was a clever attempt to create some controversy on a dull news day. Given the spread of alternative news sources, one might pose the same question to the Times.
Ted : I am sure that I and my fiancee are nowhere near the target US television viewer, we are however, both interested in getting the most comprehensive, adult, news coverage available. That's why we tune in every evening to the Newshour. We find nothing wrong with it's format, or the age and demeanor of it's anchor. The Newshour reports provide the depth required to gain an understanding of events in the news.
Additionally, 90% of our television viewing time is spent watching PBS. The rest is still a wasteland.
Barb : NewsHour is the only reputable newscast that provides serious news and opinions. There is no other such source for TV or radio broadcast. The commercial newscasts are biased and superficial, never alloting enough time or insight for providing people in a democracy the information they need to have an informed opinion.
Jeanne Ruggles : I can not imagine a world without PBS. The News Hour, Washington Week in Review, Charlie Rose and the other informative programs are all first rate and a must for knowing what's going on in world. Once and awhile I scan the other stations(we don't have cable)and I am appalled- its junk... no wonder the American citizenry is so uninformed! PBS does not "dumb" us down and I will continue to support public broadcasting to the extent that I can.
Ken : I tape the PBS News everyday so I can watch it at my leisure. I am able to pause so I won't miss anything worthwhile which is most of what is presented. I am an informed citizen and voter as a result of PBS news. Very relevant, very necessary---keep up the good work!!
John Carroll : We build our evenings around PBS and the News Hour. We would love an improvement in the programming (can only watch the Roadshow so many times) but the News Hour should go untouched -- it is the only reliable journalism available.
Richard Diehl : I can't imagine the choice of "irrelevant" applied to the News Hour. Rather, I think the features give weight to what is important in our day. I am pleased to say it is the only news program I watch, and I trust it will remain a regular, relevant feature for years to come.
Gary Miller : Newshour is the only TV news program I watch. Other stations spend only a few minutes, sometimes seconds, on very important issues. Newshour covers 3 or 4 stories in an hour. If anything it is the 1/2 news programs that are irrelevant. They cater to making a profit over providing news. They are personality driven instead of news driven.
Pat Ursomano : I have watched PBS on and off for years, using the News Hour to supplement the information I got watching ABC, CBS, and NBC. The day Bush invaded Iraq was the last day I watched ANY network news program. The complete capitulation of the major networks to the administrations "prepping" of us for the invasion was the last straw for me. Even the use of the term "coalition forces" on the networks drove me to distraction. I WANT both sides of every story, and the networks insult my intelligence. I don't mention Fox because I do not consider it to be a legitimate news organization. Without PBS and NPR, I would just be another member of the herd.
Earl Weed : I like the New York Times. It is an important institution and serves a worthy purpose, even tho' many of my Texas Republican friends disagree with that. They would like to see it fold just like the article suggests about PBS and especially the News Hour. The News Hour is our basic source of balanced, comprehensive daily news. My wife and I watch it every night and to suggest that it is not relevant, is heresy and incomprehensible.
ktlam1955 : I would be very upset if they eliminated PBS. It offers an intelligent, fair and impartial view of current events. Shows such as the "News Hour with Jim Lehrer," "Frontline," and others like it provide a service that the commercial networks no longer offer.
Judy Grunwaldt : The Leherer Hour is the best there is. It's true that cable provides many talk shows but none cover events the way Jim Leherer does. He gives his guests time to complete their interviews without cutting them off or jumping in to show how much smarter he is than they are. This is probably the only program that maintains order and each guest states their ideas without other guests fighting, talking over them or acting like children. Finally, the News Hour covers intelligent stories unlike cable which gives too much time to stories about people like Paris Hilton or Britany Spears. I am not sure who the latter stories appeal to but it is definitely not me. A demographic such as mine is always overlooked when it comes to broadcasting and I don't know why. Some of us actually have educations.
Judy
Tracy : PBS is the only place where you can get real NEWS. Not propaganda. This is the last real entity that can deliver the facts as they are and really educate the public. The remainder of the media outlets are owned by just a few big corporations therefore what you get from them is propaganda - what they want you to hear. This is an outrage to even suggest that we (as a country) don't need PBS - we need PBS more now than we ever have.....
Lori Ohmes : Yes, PBS is still needed and there is no substitute or better alternative in cable programming. I would wager there are thousands of items in the governmental budget of less significance and value. PBS serves as an oasis of quality, unbiased, unique programming offering an alternative to the usual and often tasteless fare that abounds on TV. Public radio also serves a needed niche..
Midwestern Un-Pundit : In times when it's hard to find a source of news without a politicial or ideological "agenda," PBS is IT as far as I'm concerned! Most critics of PBS whose words I've heard or read and who want to see the demise of PBS are those who want to crush their opposition -- to get rid of the last bastions of neutrality in favor of their own biased viewpoints. It is important for us all to remember that in order for a country to remain FREE it must allow as many varied viewpoints to exist as there are citizens of that country! Thank you, PBS, for guarding that freedom so well and providing the widely-varying material that I see on my local PBS channel everyday.
Grace Todd : The very fact that Bush wants to get rid of PBS says that we should keep it. It is the only news not corrupted by corporate interests. It is a shame that they can't do more investigative reporting. On Friday evening I stay with the station all evening. There is Charlie Rose also.
Frank : PBS fills in the gaps left by the local paper, online news, New Yorker, Economist, Wall St. Journal, etc. It offers no less than an informed vantage point from which to develop one's own perpective through a mastery of research, probing and the capacity to synthesize and present facts in an unbiased manner. The NY Times mention of the age of PBS, its viewers and some reporters is disappointing--haven't they heard that 60 is the new 50 and that viewership is composed of all ages? It is a sad testament to the propensity in our culture to devalue the wisdom of age and experience, and ignore the educational preparation of past generations that seems, for the first time in history, to have surpassed that of succeeding generations. PBS is simply a "must"-- not "musty".
Alan Raflo : The Times article was about more than the NewsHour, and some of the non-NewsHour comments merit consideration. As for the NewsHour, however, I agree with all the strong supporters who've already posted comments. I would add that the calm, professional, and trustworthy approach and demeanor of Mr. Lehrer and the other anchors and reporters--no matter how tragic, dramatic, or even humorous the story--is one of the most valuable aspects of the show. In this, they remind me of the sense of reassurance that, I believe, viewers used to find in Walter Cronkite.
John B : I cannot believe that anyone, but especially the New York Times,(which I read every day!) would question the usefulness of PBS!!It is the single best source of news and entertainment on television.All my friends swear by Jim Lehrer and the News Hour-------informative, balanced and interesting. And the only program to acknowledge the on-going deaths of our Iraq casualties.
PBS is a national treasure. Long may it prosper!
Pat Young : PBS irrelevant? I guess that makes ME irrelevant! PBS Newshour is the only regular news show I watch on US TV. Actually, most of my TV-based news comes from PBS or Link TV. Granted, I'm not a great fan of Lawrence Welk, and there are other programs I don't watch, but that's my choice and no different than any other TV network. But the quality and thoroughness of PBS presentations simply is head and shoulders above most other channels. Bill Moyers is a voice of informed reason above the usual talking heads and shouters, and the childrens' programs are the only ones my grandchildren watch. I suppose PBS isn't glitzy enough or video-game-oriented enoughto attract some younger viewers. But overall if PBS were not on the air, I would consider selling my TV set. Whoever researched the Times article obviously was the same pollster who predicted the wrong outcome in New Hampshire.
R. Cassidy : Airwaves belong to the public and are used free of charge by the 'for-profit' networks as well as PBS on the condition they broadcast in the public interest. Yet in between the nearly incessant selling there's hardly time for much of anything other than reality shows on the networks. Very little of educational value comes from the for-profit networks. Thankfully PBS supplies the public with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Nova, the NewsHour and many other award winning shows that have lasted decades and are aired all over the world. Is it the 30 years of successful, credible news reporting and the dozens of awards that the NewsHour continues to receive that causes the Times writer at large to worry about the age of the program or its audience? Are the decades of excellence a fault to be corrected?
Mr. McGrath (formerly with The New Yorker's fiction department) asserts that cable has changed the "collective despair over what had become of the airwaves," yet 20 million homes still rely on the airwaves for TV reception, and cable news shows still have not matched the audience size of the NewsHour. Many PBS programs are also available online, without charge. Paying a monthly cable fee to receive programming which is now 30% advertising is not a universal idea of money or time well spent.
Ditching the public's Public Broadcasting System and leaving us with only the rest would be a reversal of good judgement and a dirty trick played on America. It is *our* airwaves our government is auctioning off to the phone companies and others this month; give us more of those billions for the sensible, useful programming PBS provides.
Phil Miller : I'm a regular reader of the NY Times and I'm really sorry to see them take this position on PBS. I consider the News with Jim Leherer to be every bit as important as my daily read of the Times. In one hour of "Jim Leherer" a viewer will get more news and a more balanced presentation of the news of the day than can be found on ABC, CBS and NBC combined. The depth of reporting on PBS news is remarkable in this time of sound-bites on most cable news fluff. I would pay for the Jim Leherer news each night if I had to.
rowdy : instead of preaching to the choir,all of you people need to be calling your congressmen and senators. if we can afford a trillion dollar war, we can damn well afford PBS.
clara : PBS is the channel I view 90% of the time. I appreciate its appeal to all ages and the timely information. If you mess with PBS, you mess with me!
allan dibiase : I think PBS offers diversity. Finding quality programming on cable or satellite is not as easy as some people seem to believe. What's attractive (not perfectly) about PBS is that "as a whole" it offers a qualitatively different programming. So it's a place one can go to and be reasonably assured of some standard. How many things are there in American public life like this? Not too many I think. So (per the Times) we really should consider letting it go. Duh?
DG : NPR is great too, but I simply cannot do without the Lehrer News Hour. My 20-yr-old son and I, who watch it together (he is otherwise online) were struck recently by the contrast between Lehrer's and network/cable coverage of various primaries. The former offered intelligent analysis, varying points of view and historical perspectives. The latter offered cool new hi-tech equipment with up-to-the-second data! Flashy graphics! Excited predictions!! Amazing and oft-repeated "this is important" sound effects!! Numerous commercial breaks!! Needless to say we stuck with Lehrer, especially relishing - as always - the Brooks and Shields conversations. It was obvious who had more money to spend on production, but it was even more obvious who had a few licks of sense to bring to the discussion. Wouldn't it be great if PBS had a budget comparable to ABC's, say, or CNN's - but without then being beholden to a corporation ever-devoted to its own bottom line? I'm sure they'd love to have streaming video, if they could afford it. Since I also like NPR I'm glad they're doing so well - but I don't get the consistently great one-hour news fix on the radio that I get from Lehrer. Is there a Joan Kroc out there somewhere for PBS?
Douglas LaFleur : PBS' relevance increases every day. Commercial news can't even be called 'news' anymore. The only serious and nonpartisan coverage and debate takes place on PBS. If our elected politicians can't see that, then it's a testament to their disconnectedness. I'd love to see the Star Wars Program receive a LOT less funding, and PBS receive a LOT more of our tax dollars. On a daily basis I spend hours listening to PBS, and if it weren't there, a void would exist for me that no other source could fill- that other news sources have proven they can not fill. PBS is vital to me.
Evelyn Sinclair : To keep abreast of the news of the country and the world, I know of no better program than "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer." Where else can we find ongoing, objective, and serious reporting of what is happening each day and the larger issues of our time? Certainly no other television news program begins to compete with it. PBS deserves public support through our federal government.
Melissa : PBS has the most outstanding programming on air today. Our family watches PBS for at least 70% of our television viewing. We need independent stations free from Turner Broadcasting, to ensure that all sides of issues continue to be presented.
nancy : jim: your news is the only format that i watch every night - it is civil, informative, the questions pertinent to the subject and you & your colleagues have mastered the art of listening and asking thoughtful as well as thought provoking questions. the times is way off base.
Elizabeth : The News Hour With Jim Lehrer is the only televised news I trust. I can always depend upon hearing both sides of an issue, intelligently discussed.
Larry : The dumbing of commercial television has reached such a state that I no longer watch commercial television. PBS presents such a wide range of programs that I am able to view, without being connected to expensive cable, FREE even in rural Eastern Oregon. 1000 comercial choices & nothing worthwile to watch...
Denise Arvidson : I'm a regular watcher of the PBS News Hour. I appreciate the indepth coverage and analysis which is often missing from the commercial TV stations. Incidentally, I think Mark Shields is very articulate and humorous.
Kurt Steiner : I didn't even read the article, only the biline, but I would have to say that they are totally wrong. PBS is the main reason I watch television (I didn't even own one until 2003) and it's programming and minimal commercial content are very welcome in my home.
Chuck : PBS programming is virtually the only TV viewing time we spend besides local weather. Reducing or eliminating the Newshour, for example, would be a major blow to our lives.
Naphtali : Without having read the Times article (although I plan to), I can speak to the total relevancy of Public Television! After the evening news of the three major networks, I always turn over to the McNiel/Lehrer report so I can get the "real" unbiased deal. I also fondly remember my classs going to the TV room to watch our French lessons on WNET way back in the pre-Sesame Street days. Those same opportunities should remain available for viewers of this era. I used to like the NY Times, but the new breed there needs to start smoking dope again!
Barbara : Jim and Company: I watch lots of television news but the NewsHour is the only place where I can count on balanced analysis with enough information to really inform. The commercial stations often seem committed to MAKING the news and then cutting away to, yes, commercials. If we lost the NewsHour, along with Masterpiece Theater, Mystery, Nova, etc. then there would be very few choices for people who want enrichment as well as entertainment. Thanks for your commitment to bringing us the news!
claire macy : My children and now theirs are not exposed to violence nor graphic sex on public television. Rather they are challenged and delighted as I am when Shields and Brooks comment or Bill Moyers and Masterpiece appear.Please do not tamper with this culturally respected icon.
Bud & RhodaTritschler : The News Hour with Jim Leher, Washington Week, Now and Bill Moyers are the only programs we watch. In fact, public radio and television are the only things we ever hear or see. Straying from Public Radio and TV yields only schlock, sillyness and bias.
jackie : My husband and I are addicted to the News Hour. It's pretty much the only news show we watch, even though I have to admit they sometimes tell me more than I want to know about a subject. Jim and the others are the best interviewers I've heard. And I would be bereft if I couldn't see Shields and Brooks every Friday. It is true that the programming on PBS as a whole is not what it used to be which, as the article said, is undoubtedly due to lack of funding and to the huge number of other (cable) stations people can watch. I just hope "people like you" will continue to support PBS.
Joan and Ken Grieser : PBS, the News Hour,Bill Moyer, Frontline, are very important to us. We think it is the best way to be informed and it would be a disaster to our way of participating in government. We don't need stations that are controlled by big corporations.
Nancy : We rely on PBS for news and analysis by people across the broad political spectrum, for the discussion of ideas that lift and challenge,for entertainment and education. There is nothing like it on any other network that offers such a diverse range of programming in the highest standards. The Times article seems to say that the network may need a fresh infusion of new ideas-- and while that may hold some truth, it isn't neccessary to re-invent the wheel. We believe in PBS and that is why we gladly support it.
Sam Q. Public : Once again corporate entities attempt to control the ethos of our nation. Ask yourself who owns the New York Times? Ask yourself why presidential candidates are not rising to the defense of thoughtful, free, and open-minded examination. And since our country is for sale to the highest bidder, ask yourself who wants to buy the airwaves that PBS uses.
PJoe Byrne : PBS is, by far, the best stuff available on television. The Tuesday night line-up alone (Nova and Frontline) are the best shows on TV - period. No other nightly news program comes close to NewsHour. Keep up the good work.
Mike S : I depend on the Newshour as my primary source of all news except local. Especially interesting are the in-depth segments, such as the recent stories about education in Washington DC and New Orleans. There are many other examples, as well.
I watch most of the science programs and try to never miss Washington Week in Review.
I support my location PBS station and I do not subscribe to cable or other service. PBS is a valuable resource that should be improved and expanded, not eliminated.
Thank you to all the people who bring it to us.
Barri Clark : I am a devoted PBS supporter (also NPR and Pacifica). The News Hour
is always on my to do list. Frontline, Mystery and Masterpiece (Theatre)
also. Financial support should be increased not reduced. Although I could, I'll say no more.
Rosemary : I'm a subscriber to the Sunday NYT only(because I am daily informed by NPR and Jim Lehrer) and have been thinking about canceling that. It's basically a rehashing of what I've already heard during the week and the magazine section publishes freakshow fashion and has a format and font that makes it hard to distinguish between advertising and an actual article. To suggest that we no longer need PBS because cable is available is proof that the NYT writer has drunk the Kool Aid provided by Corporate America. PBS is not without fault; I agree with the quips about ballroom dancing and fundraising waterboarding, but the solution to that is not funding cuts but leadership.
peter t macy : I was astonished and gratified abvout how the radio audience has grown. We listen to the news each nmorning and at 5p on Wbur. We are also contributors and have been for years.
We also watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer every evening. We also watch the Bwen Eiffel show on Friday nights. Right now we are engaged with Pride and Prejudice.
we would miss Jim Leherer as we did Bob Edwards. But shows like the Jane Austin Series will be hard to replace. The Times may say that the commercial channels can do a better job but I don't think the author watches many commercial shows. There are commercials (2 minutes) every 8 minutes many of them insulting. Yes, the PBS money raising is like waterboarding. They could be improved with a little imagination. I know WBUR tells people how they are doing regularfly during their fun drives. A periodic look at a thermometer guaging progress might generate interest. I also beliebe "
Click andClaCK" DO WELL FOR THEM. i THINK A LITTLE HUMOR IN FUND RAISING MIGHT HELP.
aNOTHER SUGGESTION: WE HAVE LOVED ALL THE MYSTERY SERIES BUT THEY DON'T SEEM TO COME ON WITH ANY RFEGULARITY. You might try rerunning the Inspector Morse series. There are two or three series that seem to come on sporadically. One is the WWII series with the low key inspector and the sharp female uniformed chauffer. The other is a a young Oxford grad and his female associate. We liked both and Inspecgor Clusot is also enjoyed.
You might also figure out a way to change the current administration so your appropriation will be increased instead iof threatened. What we spend in Iraq in a day would take care of you for ten years. Go for it!
I am sending a check today to WHDH. Keep pluggoing. PTMacy
JJ : PBS is a very precious resource in the growing waste land of media messages, and an important reason why we still enjoy something like a democratic society. Thanks for the call to participate by endorsing it.
Marian : In his sarcastic, condescending article, Charles McGrath has done nothing to show the irrelevance of PBS or the Newshour. He seems to think the age of the anchor and length of time on the air are negatives. Far from it; other news programs just don't compare. With the ownership of the media falling into fewer hands, we need a good independent source of news.
Art Haigh : The NYT article was not up to NYT's standards. The writer criticizes PBS program "quality" as compared to some cable networks, but then admits it most likely caused by funding shortages! He rightly extols NPR's programming quality and then admits the Crock grant helped make this possible. Inadvertently, he actually makes a strong argument for INCREASED public funding of PBS! The core PBS programming - the truly "fair and balanced" news information programs lead by The News Hour, and children's educational programs, which he fails to mention - are not offered anywhere else. If we were to lose them, our society would be much poorer for it. This public-private partnership that is public broadcasting must continue with adequate public funding AND "support from viewers like us." Pledge now!
LaVonne : Is PBS necessary? Is PBS necessary! Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. PBS is the only TV station watched at our house. It is the only station which informs, educates & entertains consistantly; the only station we can count on to bring us the real story, the behind the scenes stories, the hushed up hidden truth behind our government's many questionable activties. Programs such as The Newshour with Jim Lehrer, Now, Washington Week in Review, Bill Moyers Report, Frontline etc. are invaluable. They should be manatory; commercial stations should be required to report this kind of information. I often wonder why so many citizens are so misinformed about our government's activities? They either do not have access to PBS or choose not to watch it. How sad! Without PBS we have no source of the truth, no watchdog, no checks & balances. The idea of no PBS is outrageous!
KQ0A : In regard to the NYT article I am reminded of an old saying, No one can think of all the questions that come to fools. Moreover, as Winston Churchill said many years ago "the essense of american journalism is vulgarity devested of truth. Currently, the vast number of network stations provide programs which are in the main, not informative as well as presenting excessive amounts of noninformation which is devoid of any redeeming qualities. for example, on the News Hour, the quality of the interviewers is outstanding, the information is highly reliable and the discussions are thoughtful and full of meaning. In contrast, all of the 24 hour "news channels" are totally controlled by corporate owners, and are presented in a very biased format. The so called anchors are only reading scripts and just about anything is presented as news. This is what happens when news operations are folded into entertainment. I believe that the only factual information presented to the publis is by PBS and Jon Stewart. Only a talkinh head would consider eliminating one of the few crown jewels of the medium
Carole : The News Hour is the only real news we have in a Country that spent millions to build an arabic speaking TV station that no one watches. Those tax dollars should have gone to PBS supporting inteligent programing for Americans. Shame on the NYT for publishing an ignorant suggestion.
Marie : PBS is the only place I can count on to give me the news and analysis I need to stay informed without all the commercials and theatrics I see on the networks and cable news. The News Hour, Washington Week and Charlie Rose are national treasures. News and current events are not entertainment, and we run the risk of eroding the pillars of our democracy if we allow commercial-based media to be the only option.
Ed Lyons : Thank you for the Newshour. It is an oasis on broadcast television and an important part of my life. I know how hard it must be to do what you do - and I am grateful.
Mona Moore : The News Hour is one of the few trustworthy programs accessible to those without cable and/or satellite. It does function "for the greater good," and it does so with integrity and, occasionally, a sense of humor, something in short supply in these troubled times. I can't imagine my early evening without it.
RC : I can only echo what others have said. PBS offers some of the only programming worth watching. As for televised news, it is truly the ONLY source of balanced coverage. I am deeply disappointed that the New York Times (of all sources) would suggest otherwise.
PBS has unquestionable value, not only for myself, but also for all of us as a community. The quality of the programs is excellent, far surpassing anything on commercial television. For example, on The News Hour, the guests who are interviewed provide superb and ofter opposing insights into the issue being discussed.
I would suggest that anyone who questions the value of PBS to the American community should, instead, question his own value system.
PBS is a National Treasure and we would be remiss to eliminate it or to allow it to disappear.
-RC
ed : In a very big way, Mr. McGrath is begging the question. Much of what he sites as PBS "deficiencies" are the result of this administration's policies, actions and inaction over the past dseven years. So if there are programming voids, many of them can be attributed to PBS budget cuts, plants of hostile executives and other meddling. Similar to the state of our budget deficit, foreign image and miltary involvement. And does he really think he can compare widely disbursed nuggets of good proogramming (Discovery, etc) to a conscious focus on objectivity minus hype? Is he really comparing Jim Lehrer to CNN or Fox?!?!? Finally, a justification of PBS existance can increasingly be made based soley on the fact that it is not part of the ever more concentrated but growing global media oligarchies.
Dan Snell : The Newshour is the only news program in America which reliably provides accurate and in depth coverage of what is happening in our country and the rest of the world. The other networks are basically entertainment and opinion masquerading as news, and are usually presented in 30 second sound bites. How many hours has CNN expended on Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, OJ Simpson, and the disappearance of a pretty white girl in Aruba while totally ignoring our country's real problems? How many news stories does Fox never mention because they don't agree with their own agenda?
PBS and PBR provides a real service to all Americans, but especially to rural and lower income America who do not have or want cable TV. They are the only satelite providers of free analog TV still out there. They are also the only network which respectfully shows the photos and hometowns of all our soldiers who are killed in the current war. Much of the opposition to PBS comes from those in Congress and big business (often the media itself)who do not like their activities exposed.
The most importantly reason of all though to support PBS is that PBS is simply the best. In a time when the media is controlled by a relative few and the news has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator PBS stands alone. No wonder the competition wants to eliminate it. PBS deserves more support not less.
Grandma Jeanne : It is enough to make us cancel our subscription to the NYT! Do any of them besides David Brooks take the time to watch PBS and compare? Headlines vs. in depth reporting for real grownups; Zoom & Fetch with real kids vs cartoons for children; interesting documentaries like American Experience and drama like Masterpiece Theater vs sex/violence in the ER and courts of law. No comparison!
Brian Stubblefield : I would encourage the fine people from the NY Times who claim that PBS is irrelevant to watch one airing of the NewsHour. It is by far the most outstanding national news broadcast currently available. It is the only forum I know where real debate, not 15 second gotchas soundbites, is still fostered.
Gene Manon : WHISKEY - TANGO - FOXTROT!!!
This is another reason for us to heed the late, great
Molly Ivin's call; "to take to the streets and bang our pots and pans!"
Darla : Yes, PBS is still necessary. The Jim Lehrer News Hour is the only news that is worth watching. A balanced review of news and events that are not covered otherwise. The team of reporters Margaret Warner, Ray Suarez, Judy Woodruff, Gwen Ifill and Jeffrey Brown are gems.
The other networks are "e-entertainment" with many commercial interruptions (during an hour of news there is only 20 minutes of reporting) and are controlled by Murdock and other corporate entities.
Credit is due to Bill Moyers as well for having the integrity to say it like it is.
I have already written my US Senators not to cut the budget for PBS/NPR. I hope others will and have done so.
Darla from Ventura California
Helen Bretz : Where else other than the Lehrer report would I have known about the NYTimes article. My immeasureable gratitude for public TV and public radio--my daily reliable source for unbiased news. Times-- thy art a changing. So be it!!
long1347 : Thank you, PBS, for the great programming. We watch the New Hour every evening, plus coverage of the primaries (without ads!), and the many other programs, such as Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose. Keep up the good work.
steve femmer : The News Hour program truely tries to inform the public...in my opinion it represents the best in journalism. Without such quality and purpose the ability to accurately perceive national and world events would be greatly diminished.
renee : The news and information we get on PBS far surpasses anything on the mega-conglomerates that I gladly turn off because of the bias and the trivia. Public funding of PBS falls in line with promoting "common good" and the "general welfare" and if anything should be increased.
tom nicely : I regret that I have not had the chance to read the Times article yet but I will. However, the one sentence which I heard on the News Hour yesterday was enough to get me going. My comment is this:I often think how lucky we are to have PBS and the News Hour and all the other programing that is so excellent. And then when I happen upon one of the one sided political talk shows that spend all of their time attempting to mislead the people of this country with radical and irreverent speach, and there are many of these I'm afraid, I wonder how has this kind of journalism been allowed to thrive and grow so much in our society? We have so many feeding their self interests at the expense of this great nation. Why haven't the abuses to free speach found an equal and opposite force to limit thier growth?
A few years ago I visited my sister who lives in Edmenton, Alberta during the run up to a national Canadian election. As I listened to the debate on various broadcast media I was struck by the level of inteligent commentary and the highly civil tone of the participants and I thought it's too bad we cannot have this level of conversation in the U.S. political arena. This country is split and you don't have to wonder why!
irwin sarason : The Times article was was stupid and destructive. It failed to pay attention adequately to the fact that there are many fewer commercials on PBS. The News Hour is one of the few programs I watch regularly on TV(also Washington Week).
Mary Maglicic : In light of the suspension of David Shuster of MSNBC and the apology made by Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball it is such a wonderful relief to tune into the Jim Lehrer Newshour and know that we won't be subjected to someone's ranting. What we get is intelligent discussion by experts who are able to speak without being interrupted and who are experts in the area they are discussing. There's no sensational presentation - just straight reporting which allows to actually listen and learn. What if we lost PBS? How about the Newshour with Rupert Murdoch's opinions?
E. Christen : PBS is the only island of sanity in a sea of below-mediocre commercial TV programs.
If it wasn’t for PBS, I wouldn’t have a TV in the house. Where else could you go for quality programs such as The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Frontline, Bill Moyer’s Journal, Nature, Nova etc., not to mention several top quality children programs? The alternatives are awful (think Fox News). Public broadcasting benefits rich and poor, and that is why it makes sense it continues as a taxpayer-supported organization. I wouldn’t mind paying more to watch PBS, if that became necessary to preserve it, but that is not an option for too many people who are now benefitting from watching PBS.
Stone : Sometimes I turn on CNN during the day to just get an idea of what is going on. Within 5 minutes, I am a maniac, what with the screaming headlines, screaming commentators, and endless self-promotion. Don't even get me started on the inane "news" stories. I switch it off and wait for the News Hour. Sanity returns. Thanks PBS.
Dion McMain : My life is enhanced, enlightened, and entertained by PBS. It would be unthinkable to not have the News Hour with dinner, or to not be prodded and porvoked by Bill Moyers. PBS is a necessity in my life.
John A. Burke : Is PBS still necessary? Yes. Now more than ever. I view 90% of my TV on PBS. The only other TV shows that I watch are Homer Simpson, Jerry Seinfeld, the World Series and the Super Bowl. I'm sorry to say it, but this seems like a rather dumb question. Why pick on PBS? I love their shows especially Sesame Street, Jim Lehrer, BBC News and The Nightly Business Report.
Nancy Burns : The News Hour is one of fewer than a half dozen television shows that my household watches with any regularity. Its reporting is unmatched in balance and depth; no other network comes close.
barbaralesley : I join the chorus of PBS fans. We need the perspective of Jim Lehrer and his crew, of Moyers and others. We need Frontline. I can't believe the author of the article was a serious consumer of news and entertainment.
joe : The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, in my humble opinion, is not the gold standard of news broadcasting (vis a vis all media); it is THE standard. Civil and dignified in tone throughout; uncondescending; unpretentious; consistently aspires to provide differing, albeit mature perspectives. Thank you for lo these many years of enriching my existence!!!
Ibi : The Newshour is our lifeline to the morass of politics, economics and current events of the day.
Better than the newspapers, radio and other sources.
Don't you dare to touch it!
Sunny : PBS is my only reason for having a TV. And The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is so far superior to other "news" programs, it is in a league of its own. I can count on getting the whole picture, both sides, of every issue and I would not miss a single program.
Ericka : PBS and the New Hour is the only news source I can rely on for balanced and informed reporting. There is no other network news program providing intelligent reporting of national and international events. Without PBS there would be no where to turn to find in-depth balanced reporting.
Susan : PBS stations are the *only* stations my family and I consistently watch, as they are the only stations that offer fare worth spending any time on. It is of course a disgrace that our dysfunctional federal administration cannot bring itself to fund public television, which may in turn limit PBS' acquisitions. But even repetitions of "As Time Goes By" or "Keeping Up Appearances" are preferable to the dim-witted nonsense that pervades commercial television. As for the "News Hour", it is the most informative News program on the air by far. I have no interest in Jim Lehrer's age, nor should anyone else. It is irrelevant to the quality of his material. Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio offer programs of a similarly high standard. The dizzying array of cable channels now available contain few which match, and none which exceed, PBS stations in the quality of their programming. The ineptitude of Mr. McGrath's essay makes me wonder if it was not a ploy to spur donations to PBS!
tripoli : It's obvious that 'the market' is incapable of producing civilized results on its own. Thus, one of the brightest comments on our society and government is that it supports an independent voice, knowing that constructive criticism is the surest way to insure that we stay a free and civilized society... Long Live PBS !!! The alternative is too painful to imagine
Anton J Vesely : I'd as soon pay a national television tax, like they do in Great Britain, than lose PBS. Just compare BBC to any infotainment US network news.
rustybucket55 : Hello Jim, I have watched the newshour sence the early 80's. It is the only tv news I ever watch. As a teen in the 50's my father told me that one of the failuresof the school's is that they dont teach kids how to read a newspaper. "They are all political". Todays tv newscast are the same, look at FOX. The reason I like your news so much is that it is balanced and fair. Also it gives an indepth report, not just a soundbite. Just a while ago I was wonderrring what would happen if you retired. Keep up the good work.
Katharine Curry : The News Hour is the place I go for the best chance of hearing all sides of a story, thoughtfully, with enough discussion time to move behind slogans, or out of context presentation. We would be close to losing our democracy without it. I am terrified by the idea that it is of no use any longer.
Trudy Miller : The News Hour, BBC News, Washington Week, NOW, Bill Moyers Journal, Frontline, Great Performances, Masterpiece Theater....needless to say, these programs offer a treasure trove of programming: news one would never hear elsewhere, critical thinking, fascinating dialog, cultural gems (for those of us who don't live in New York City) and investigative journalism. HOORAY for such substantive television! Sorry, you FOX network watchers--we PBS watchers need our minds challenged and our lives enriched!
Robert W Rasch : PBS is the only reason that I still have a television set. Newwork Television died some time ago and most of radio isn't worth listening to.
The NewsHour is the only real news hour that I know of. Jim: you are a diamond!
Tom Marx : I watch all three network news programs even though I am not interested in who is in recovery or who is getting a divorce. I hope to hear a snipet of information that may have some impact on the world and try to understand how that will affect others in the world. I watch CNN CNBC FOX and seldom have the "Ah Ha" moment. On PBS I see BBC, The News Hour, Foreign Exchange, Gwen Eifel,Now, Bill Moyers, Frontline, Independent Lens and others that allow me to see the world in ways not available on other venues. PBS in relevant and important in my life.
Caroline and Earl : We watch the News Hour every evening for its balanced and in depth insights into national and international issues that are available nowhere else. PBS educational programming is valuable for all ages. Our sons and their families watch regularly. PBS deserves public and private support.
Jeanne logan : When I moved to MA in 1965, I was thrilled to discover PBS. Today, years later I am still a PBS fan. My household revolves around the
evening news with Jim Lehrer and his wonderful crew. We count on their impartiality and fairness.
Susan : I can truly say that the most important part of my soon-to-be-paid income taxes will be any allocation to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Through various informative programs on my local PBS station here in San Diego I have become more aware of the self-serving behaviors of the big, for-profit media conglomerates. No wonder there are voices that would like PBS silenced!
Zia : As far as I am concerned, PBS is the ONLY broadcast station that IS NECESSARY!
The public TV alternatives are poor. As it is currently offered, I do not want paid/subscription TV. Most of it is as bad as network TV, and then there are the ever-increasing fees for channel packages I won't ever use.
The writers' strike made it even more obvious that mainstream network programming of decent dramatic fare is on thin ice. The networks' decisions to drown us with a plethora of stupid, mindless, degrading, etc. 'reality' programs made it clear to me that by choosing PBS, and NetFlix movie rentals, I don't need or want what major networks, and their advertisers, have to offer.
I am proud to be a long-time member of PBS (and local OPB) and to know that some of my tax dollars support this national resource, as well as other
public resources like parks, museums, etc. that are there for everyone's benefit whenever they might choose to use them.
Paul Wintz : The PBS Newshour is by far the best unbiased news program. The networks news offer a few minutes news followed by a bunch of junk. Fox is so biased it is funny.
Keith Spitler : Especially given the poor quality and eroding standards of commercial media, it is more important than ever to have access to the extended coverage and more thoughtful presentation of PBS programming like The News Hour and Frontline. Commercial media has been obsessively reducing their coverage to sound bites, special interest agendas, and opinion mongering. With profit and ratings pressures, commercial media is not in a position to provide the caliber of journalism to which I have been accustomed on PBS. If there is an organized campaign to alert/inform congressional or FCC representatives, please let me know.
JZ : The News Hour is the only tv news program I watch. I appreciate the more in depth discussion of the issues from various points of view. The Shields and Brooks segment analyzing poitical issues is always interesting even when they don't get it right on the exit polls. The legal analyst who covers legal issues and the Supreme Court is the best. Cable tv news is a joke. I can't stand to listen, much less watch since there are news banners moving across the screen the entire time. It is as if they think their viewers have ADD! Even during the few occasions when I watch entertainment programs on other channels, I keep my finger on the remote to switch to PBS during the countless commercials.
I also listen to PBS on the radio to and from work and church on Sunday mornings. "All Things Considered," "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me," "Click and Clack" are among my favorites.
It figures the the Bush Baby Administration would try yet again to keep people in the dark by slashing the budget for public broadcasting. That's what they're good at -- slash and burn, let's keep it a secret tactics.
Frances Raymond : My support for PBS will continue. After reading the New York Times article, I am will increase my monthly donation to our local PBS station.
Michelle : I am a 44-year-old who essentially listens only to NPR and really needs my nightly Newshour fix. I am also addicted to Washington Week. Perhaps stodgy is the new slang for "calm and collected." However, let's call a spade a spade -- there ARE commercials. Too many
Larry : I can't believe the worth Public Television would be questioned. Just one look at the major networks news shows, if you can catch the news on them between station breaks and advertisemtns, shows their weak and often bias presentations. Public Telelevison must ontinue its good work.
Chuck Wheatley, Fairfield Bay, AR : I have watched the News Hour since its inception and don't find anything like it on cable/satellite; nothing even close in terms of depth, scope and neutrality. I have the greatest regard for Jim Lehrer but it is time for Jim to retire and bring a new face and some liveliness to the show. Gwen Ifil is the obvious choice based on her work on Washington Week. NOW is great also serving a real public need for information on stories that don't get the airing they need.
Chuck Wheatley Fairfield Bay, AR
Erika Stewart : Vacuous network news which dusts a grain of importance off carefully controlled issues then fills in with cotton candy stories about movie stars and baby pandas can never stand up to the insights and intelligence of the New Hour. Blogs provide a nice supplement to the New Hour but can never replace the liveliness of the face to face debating that the New Hour provides. No News Hour? Don't even think it! We love Jim, Gwen, Judy Margaret Jeff and Ray, and yes, we'd even love to take a cruse with then.
NY Times prediction : Younger generations and working professionals are NOT watching hours of constant television. Without new open media, the New York Times article may be more of a prediction than an argument.
PBS does not offer up to date streaming news video:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
Mario Rios Pinot : I think the NY Times article is mean spirited yet it might have made some interesting points. I think the Newshour with Jim could use some re-organizing with new formats. Interviews with experts is very good but if they do not express different view points what is the idea of similar views? It would be interesting to know how these comments, on PBS NYT are leaning. I support PBS, I like it. But it could use some revamping. Thank you.
CJ : The "grandparent of many colors that sits sometimes but not often silent, somewhere in the great room or living room of each American house" is the story-teller of American values. She/he tells the stories well -- and all the time. She/he is, of course, the TV.
I know -- from her story-telling -- that my America is extremely violent and unforgiving, sexually active in a variety of fascinating ways, hateful and full of revenge, a name-caller, smart-alecky, a child not too respectful of any adult, a mass murderer that is great-looking and has a well-paying job and "only kills the 'bad' people," a tribe-minded viewer easily susceptible to propaganda -- the list goes on.
We in our house want to resist that picture of America. Resisting is an on-going battle. We acknowledge that some Americans are like that. We acknowledge that young people and newcomers to America utilize that grandparent in the living room to discover what "the real America"is like. And we acknowledge that because of her constant presence she is able to spew forth a compelling argument.
Let me ask that grandparent's listeners some questions. Do most citizens reject their opposition's point-of-view out of hand, refusing even to analyze what they hear from the "other side" in order to identify part of the opposition's argument that makes sense? Do most Americans regularly engage in public sex and one-night stands? Is the "f word" a part of most people's vocabulary in every setting? Are all Crime Scene Investigators gorgeous and unstoppably fascinated by their crime scenes and their jobs?
What are the answers?
This is the Information Age (an over-used phrase!) in ways that no one except perhaps Marshall McLuhan (and Quentin Fiore) anticipated. And, yes, the book is "The Medium is the Massage" -- not "the Message."
And in the Information Age, we believe that many succumb to the Sirens' lyrics as sung by the commercial media. If they have not yet given in, and if we citizens want to preserve our democracy, then it's reasonable to support media that provide varied, balanced information about country, values, successes, scientific or humanitarian advances, hard-working people of all socioeconomic classes. It's reasonable to sustain an accessible media -- both PBS and NPR.
Our grandchildren appreciate PBS's well-thought-out programing, and their parents (far from being ready for assisted living) watch The News Hour regularly. Of course, they ARE well-educated -- but they aren't "rich."
Today, without the availability of a broad education and the access to a spectrum of opinions on national, state, and local issues, there will be no lasting democracy, founded on the notion of education and equal opportunity.
The other day when I complained to our cable provider that most of what he was selling us is junk, he said, "Oh, would you like to add-on the 'Faith and Values' channels?"
"No," I said, "believe it or not I'm a liberal with some significant conservative, faith-based streaks. And there are other people out there, just like me. We look for quality TV -- and it's hard to find anywhere except on PBS."
"Oh," he said. Obviously, such a thought had never entered his mind.
Robert : I and my wife watch the News Hour several nights a week, and we have done so for years. As others here are saying, the News Hours provides a refreshingly balanced and deeper coverage of the news, so different from what is available on CNN, the networks, and Fox. We also are grateful for the dialogue offered in Washington Week in Review. We occasionally watch specials, but what we would most miss if PBS were to disappear would be the news programming. PBS is something special, and it serves our nation and the world well for our tax dollars to support it, along with individual and corporate support.
haroldsom : Where on the touted cable channels are we to get balanced, in-depth and informed news coverage. Jim Lehrer's program is the only TV news that we watch every night. The others are nothing but sound bites and the latest murders, car crashes and irrelevancies. I'm all for sprucing up PBS programming but as the Times so correctly points out, that takes money and our current administration is as likely to do approve adequate funding as it is to craft and adopt a coherent energy policy.
Billye Middleton : Please! Have some respect for your elders. Not everything has to be slanted toward the young. Afrer all, we elders have been paying taxes and sebding money to PBS longer than the youth have been alive. With Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyers, David Broncaccio,Charlie Rose, etc, etc, there wouldn't be any reason for me to turn on the television; so add my name to the outrage.
PBS repeats old shows too often, and I hate their pledge drives, but slashing their federal subsidy will only make their situation worse, What PBS needs is a Joan Kroc,
Robert A.Steinberg : We watch PBS daily and will continue to support PBS financially. Jim Lehrer is a nightly must.Nowhere else do I find such consistently intellectually commentary.
Nancy Chaffin : PBS and the News Hour in particular is very much needed these days. So much of television is not worth watching and has very little of value to offer. Realeity shows are particularly dumb. We need what PBS has to offer. There is always some thing worth seeing. The News Hour has the best coverage of any news program on the air. The discussions about the news is particularly helpful in understanding our world today. Please keep doing what you are doing!
Bob and Holiday Matchett : To all of the incredible reporters and supporters of PBS : We are so glad this topic of PBS came up. For 40 years we have been "engaged" in watching the News Hour, along with many other forms of information. None match PBS for its perspective of unbiased information and thoroughness of discussion. Over the years, the interviews have become more probing and the interviewers have become more challenging in their questions. We are so glad the question came up: What other news program could possibly equal Lehrer News Hour? The answer, in case you are interested, is None at this time in our history.
GAIL GILLILAND : Last night when I was watching MacNeil-Lehrer - which I do without fail every evening - I was surprised to hear about the NYT article questioning the purpose of a public station news program. (I hadn't read it. There are only so many Eastern newspapers someone living in the rural area of San Diego County can afford.) It wasn't, however, until this morning while I was doing my taxes - and saw my paltry donation of $80 to PBS - made largely because I depend so much on that news program - that I realized maybe I could do more than give money, of which I don't have a great deal. So I'm posting this comment. Why is anyone questioning a public station newscast? Every time I try to watch Brian Williams on NBC, I find myself questioning any coverage about medicine "break-throughs" - of which there are at least one for every 20-minute program - because the entire newscast, not to mention the rest of the network's programming, is funded by drug ads by big companies - some of whose products, like the one advertised by "the inventor of the artificial heart" who turned out not to be an MD-type doctor, and wasn't licensed to prescribe medicine, or the one about Viagra, which turned out to cause blindness sometimes, or children's cough medicines, which turned out to be dangerous, etc. Last night I finally turned Brian Williams off halfway through and decided that from now on I'll just wait till 7 pm and watch MacNeil-Lehrer. It's the only news program I can trust!!!!
Thank you for alerting your viewers so we could comment.
susan : I am a great fan of PBS, especially the News Hour and Washington Week, both of which I watch religiously. I believe they are the best news shows on TV. (I almost never watch network news.) All sides of issues are explored in detail. Background information helps the viewer place events in context and understand difficult problems.
Tom : The News Hour provides a daily summary of the news and still manages to go into depth on the major stories providing an objective analysis of the news. The network news shows do not provide the same depth or objectivity.
Karen Sirkin : I would be devastated without public television (and radio). They are the ONLY sources of complete and thoughtful information on the air. Their reporting is complete and thoughtful. There is no substitute!
We get 100's of channels on our cable television, and with the exception of HBO, there is NOTHING worth viewing.
Public television may be irrelevant to the average American, but they have 100's of channels to chose from. Those of us who are more discerning deserve and need a better alternative.
My husband and I were out of the country recently and the only news we could get was NBC's Nightly News with Brian Williams. He is a smart and funny guy; I heard him once on "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me." However, his news program is a complete joke compared with Jim Lehrer's News Hour.
I am mad at the Times for a lot of reasons these days and this article is just one more reason to consider discontinuing our subscription.
Sincerely,
Karen Sirkin
Robert Kelly : There is simply no comparison between the Newshour and the network news shows. The latter are more interested in entertaining us than in informing us.
Granted that there is occasionally some 'real' news on their broadcasts, it is usually hurried and virtually never analyzed in any detail. What the newshour does is supply and inform; it is never just news, it is information. There is no other network news show that does that.
Joan Jernegan : The News Hour is the only news show I watch on TV. It is a reliable source of commentary and analysis, of the events of the day, that otherwise are just hurled at the public as "breaking news", without context or analyisis from all sides.
Local news, network news and the majority of cable news is an insult to the public's intelligence, providing a titillation diet of fire, murder and celebrity, with just a glimpse of events in the rest of the globe, lacking meaningful analysis.
The News Hour is an antidote, worthy of public support.
serge : I don't need glitz when I watch the news.What I want is fair and insightful reporting. This is what I get from the NewsHour. Moreover,PBS offers concerts, musicals, and opera ( not enough to be sure) without commercial interruption. Just recently, I was watching the Grieg Piano Concerto on Ovation TV. The piece was interrupted abruptly in the middle of a movement for 4 commercials! As usual, the NYT is on the wrong side of an issue.
tom mcneely : This is a great country! The Times article would contemplate doing away with the only objective, intelligent, researched, documented journalism on TV today. This is just more thoughtless rhetoric from the eastern establishment.
RandyInNM : The NewsHour and PBS in general is one of the few places where Americans can go to get in-depth, thoughtful, and insightful reporting and analysis. I rely on it daily.
Bryan Dinwoody : I believe, as many others have stated, that PBS is of more relevance today than ever. The professional reporters and hosts that are part of the the PBS family, help to insure that news and issues are relevant to the viewers. Jim Lehrer and Gwen Ifill are priceless. All of you, please keep up the good work. Your efforts are most appreciated.
If anything is becoming irrelevant, it is the New York Times.
Cathy : We are fortunate in our area to have two PBS station available. If I missThe Newshour in the afternoon I can still see it at 6pm. My perspective of the world is broadened by the people interviewed. I just hate it when I miss Shields and Brooks. It is pleasant to have two sides given without the rancor and shouting.The NYT writer must like 5 mins of programing on the cable stations and 12-15 commercials following. Masterpiece Theater and Mystery have been my favorites for years. Where would we be if Alastaire Cooke not taught us the English we supposedly speak.
CAROL BOCAIN : Jim Leher's news hour is my favorite news program because it gives balanced commentary on news events, unlike other shows that often sensationalize their comments. Please keep it on the air.
Frances in Chapel Hill : My husband and I are among the many people who watch the Lehrer News Hour every weekday night. We consider it a beacon of reason, information, objectivity and civility--in its beginning years, what it was hoped all programs on TV would be. What I appreciate more than anything else on the Lehrer News Hour is its level of civil discourse--interviewees during the same segment may feel passionately about and be polarized in their points of view, and yet the discussion never degenerates (well, almost never) into interrupting the other person, shouting and personal attack. This is due to the standard of discourse set by the News Hour and the skill of Jim and his staff. I find our daily ration of the News Hour inspiring as well as educational--the equanimity, courtesy and intellectual curiosity shown by Jim Lehrer and the News Hour staff models civilized human behavior and personal interaction. The timing of Mr. McGrath's essay couldn't have been more fortuitous--appearing during fundraising, I bet it's resulted in a flood of additional contributions to PBS.
We'd be lost without the Lehrer News Hour--thank you so much for being there.
NCARalph : I too think the Newshour is the only intelligent news program on the air. However, having said that, it is getting a bit stale, with far too many softball questions and few follow-ups when guests say stuff that is clearly contradictory or outright false. This isn't a left vs right issue, it definitely cuts both ways. Being intelligent isn't synonymous with being innocuous.
Warren Johnson : Its a sad comment on the on this country when the best sources of information and highest quality entertainment attract so few viewers. It doesn't bode well for where we are heading.
benbaltimore : I don't know how anyone, especially in the New York Times, can attack the News Hour. It remains the only source for reasoned, thoughtful, and thorough discussions of current issues. Compared with the 'infotainment' spewing from the cable news networks, I can't think of a more vital program for our democracy and our place both locally and globally. While somewhat dumbed down itself, for the New York Times to publish such a piece can also be a criticism of itself, a news medium attempting similar journalistic standards in a changing and challanging media world. I watch Jim almost every evening and would be gravely disappointed if someone thought the need to 'modernize' the program (=dumb it down)!
Harry Johnson : Hands off The News Hour! This is absolutely THE best TV News program around, and it is the only one that reports the news, and not try to spin it or sell it! And Jim Lehrer is by far the best news anchor in this country. It's the NY Times article writer who seems to be in need for assisted living... apparantly suffering from memory loss, has forgotten 101 professional standards of journalism, assuming that he has learned any! Shame on the Times to allow such despicable language in a newspaper that used to pride itself on professionalism. Believe it or not, even people in assisted living are still human beings who also watch the news, and deserve some respect.
Mary : I have been a regular viewer of The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer since it was the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Why? Because the interviewers respect both the guests they're interviewing AND the television viewers. The interviewers give us credit that we can listen to diverging opinions and actually come to our own conclusions. Unlike most cable and network news programs, the NewsHour actually challenges us to analyze and use critical thinking skills as we listen. Thank you, NewsHour, for providing this forum and for showing us such respect.
Christine in Hampton, VA : This critisism of PBS would be totally unbelieveable were it not for the crisis state of American media. The Jim Lehrer New Hour is the ONLY daily television news program that is indepth, unbias, and not interrupted with almost as many minutes of drug company commericals as there is news! Who are the "special interests" served by PBS? You, me, and all of humanity! I find I'm increasingly recommending it to the confused American public who are starting to realize that they've been mislead, misdirected, misinformed, and played like puppets over the last several years. An informed public is necessary for a strong democracy - PBS should receive FULL FUNDING by our government, and be widely publicized at taxpayer expense! Do I want to pay more taxes? No. However, if the majority of the American public watched even one month's worth of the PBS New Hour, they would begin holding their representatives more accountable for the decisions they are making that are bankrupting this great country of ours and destroying our reputation in the world. WE CAN DO BETTER AS A NATION! UNBIASED PUBLIC NEW MEDIA IS FUNDAMENTAL TO OUR FUTURE.
Tim : In my humble opinion, the ONLY trustworthy daily news program on television is the Jim Lehrer Newshour. In fact my favorite 15 minutes of any type of media all week is the Friday segment of that show with David Brooks and Mark Shields. It is informative, honestly opinionated, and respectful of the intelligence of both the participant and the listener. I contrast this with statements made by the President of the United States and his minder, the Vice-President.
Hugh DuBose : PBS is vital to my TV! I watch The News Hour, Nova, Washington Week, Now, Nature, Bill Moyers, the Britcoms, and Laurence Welk regularly.
Dena : My favorite day of the week is Friday, when my workweek is over and I can settle down to an evening of informative news and investigative journalism. MSM abandoned their responsibility to keep the citizenry informed. I am a real conservative Republican (as opposed to the fake ones running the current administration) and don't agree with every opinion presented on PBS, but at least I'm given enough information on both sides of an issue to come to my own conclusions. I can't tell you how disappointing it is that I have to search foreign newspapers to find out what's going on in my own country! PBS is the only light at the end of the tunnel. I wouldn't have a clue about what my government was doing without PBS. Thank you, PBS!
Alton F. : PBS equals quality television programming. You can’t find better programs than “Nova,” “Nature,” and “Masterpiece.” Anyone who has watched one of these, has been educated and moved.
“The NewsHour” informs with real national and international news. It avoids the cotton candy tabloid stories that ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX are drifting to more and more. “The NewsHour” presents differing viewpoints and perspectives to a greater degree, which allows the audience to think, and to come to their own conclusions. It should be mandated that the electorate watch “The NewsHour.” Our country would improve dramatically.
I don’t know what I would do without NPR’s “Morning Edition” and “Marketplace.” I would be stuck listening to another KYW (Philadelphia News Radio) story of a city murder or fire. PRI (Public Radio International) with its BBC World Service news cannot even be compared – it is utterly superior to the local news stations.
There are negatives, I agree – as mentioned - the 30 second “credit” announcement commercials and the embarrassing pledge drives. And do I really need another station spewing traffic reports for the Blackhorse Pike (an hour away from me) and weather reports for south Jersey (I live closer to Allentown)? I’ll put up with those, because, on balance, PBS and NPR provide quality news found nowhere else.
Dena : My favorite day of the week is Friday, when my workweek is over and I can settle down to an evening of informative news and investigative journalism. MSM abandoned their responsibility to keep the citizenry informed. I am a real conservative Republican (as opposed to the fake ones running the current administration) and don't agree with every opinion presented on PBS, but at least I'm given enough information on both sides of an issue to come to my own conclusions. I can't tell you how disappointing it is that I have to search foreign newspapers to find out what's going on in my own country! PBS is the only light at the end of the tunnel. I wouldn't have a clue about what my government was doing without PBS. Thank you, PBS!
Al Verna : I find it astonishingly negative that the NYT would even suggest that Public TV is not relevant. Rather than critizing, it would have been far better for NYT to publish a "plug" for public television and help gain a larger audience. What we are getting on TV and in newspapers is all the "hype" and "sensationalism" that supposedly produces "good ratings". We get "Britney Spears on Drugs" before (and on the front page) we get "The Space Shuttle has Landed". The news, businees reports, cultural programs, environmental reports, etc on PBS are the only place on TV to get in-depth information, both sides of a story, and view some of the classics (even if somewhat aged). PBS needs more supporters more kudos, and the NYT should be on their side.
Lynne deLaubenfels : I consistently watch Nightly News Hour for the following reasons: balance, integrity, depth, analysis of issues, intelligent dialog, minimal advertising which is tasteful and does not interrupt the news. Commercial television, including their news programming, has become a vehicle for selling products and services and lacks the qualities Nightly News Hour demonstrates.
Barbara : I LOVE PBS! I'm a Canadian who pledges diligently and understands fully the value of having an objective news source. Not only are the shows I like to watch - Newshour, Frontline, Nova - excellent, the on-line content is stellar. Most of the stuff on TV is useless and I'm seriously thinking of not renewing my cable...but I would keep supporting PBS, because people in the US need to have an alternative news program. Here in Canada, we have a government sponsored Television station: the CBC. This tends to be rather leftist but IS critical of the government (whoever is in power). Some Canadians hate it's liberal views, others love it, but all agree it should exist. More people who watch PBS need to pony up and make sure it survives. I wonder what David Brooks thinks of this...
Martha Callaghan-Chaffee : I cannot imagine not watching Jim Lehr's New Hour. It is the only program I know that presents both sides of issues in a civil and educated manner. It also takes enough time to truly educate a viewer on topics instead of "sound bites". If funding is cut or further endangered it is only more evidence of the conservatives attempt to control our news content. The News Hour has done a recent attempt to cover in depth all of the upcoming primaries and caucuses. It has had a broad selection of people from each of the major states and business they represent. I have supported PBS each year and will continue. We cannot afford to loose this valuble format.
Arline Bahrke : In my opinion, PBS offers the best programming on television. The major networks have little more than commercials and medicre programs. The Newshour is especially important to me. It offers the most in-depth coverage in order for people to be well informed. The Newshour is not biased and covers all sides of a story. In general, PBS offers excellence in programming for every type of man, woman or child. It would be a tragedy to remove the PBS channel.
a skogland : I cannot disagree with you more regarding the relevance of PBS in today's TV world. I do not see any mystery, drama, Austin City Lights, or symphony on cable TV. There are no in-depth news analysis or social issue analysis programs like Frontline or Bill Moyer's specials - and there is no other TV news program of the caliber of The Jim Lehrer New Hour. And Charlie Rose? The best of the best with the very best guests. If you consider all this irrelevant, you are not hearing the public. I am NOT 70+ - I am 48 with 2 masters degrees, have travelled the world, and I don't watch TV EXCEPT for PBS and an occasional TCM movie - I don't want violence, inane bad comedy, constant cop shows, sports, or any of the other bad programming that lasts for 15 minutes out of 30 on cable TV. I will fight hard to keep PBS, and yes I do contribute to the stations. Those of us who want intellectual stimulation in a nonbiased format with unique variety never seem to be counted.
A. Skogland
Millington : Jim Lehrer is 73. He does not wear low cut silk blouses like the Foxettes and the CNN valley girls. He doesn't interview other reporters. He interviews people. This is a dangerous trend. Shields and Brooks don't salivate, they illuminate. Oh NYT - this is your dumbest move in some time. It's bad enough that you have become afraid of the light, now you want to extinguish the light.
Jo Carroll : Seems every president/congress pushes and prods the question of whether or not PBS funding is necessary.
It is.
There is something unique and consistent about PBS. It's called quality. Sure, we see old Brit Coms, but they're still funny. Nova still teaches. Great Performances still offers some of the best entertainment. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (that ultra-old (?!)anchor quick to put the pertinent, uncomfortable question Right There)still gives us a good bit of fodder to chew on.
PBS deserves every bit of funding they get. In fact, in this viewer's mind, they deserve more.
Leave Them Alone!
James D. Johnston : (Repeating my lost effort)First and foremost, NYTimes and Mr. McGrath, PBS is more needed today than ever,especially "The News Hour", in my view, the best and most balanced US source of TV news. I agree with much of your critique, publication of which helps prove that The Times has value and is itself still necessary. The whole print medium it obsolescent. Our democracy is decaying and abuse of the audio/visual medium is evidence. TV is so full of misinformation and trivia. Revival of audio in NPR seems somewhat to offset TV's impropaganda.
Ralph Simon : Jim Lehrer: I also believe that PBS plays a vital role in today's TV viewing. Please continue as you are and I will continue to support you.
Steve Souza : If we lose PBS it will mean the end of Democracy as we know it. The proof is in front of our faces, but many will never own up to it. The United States is going through one of the worst disasters in American history - the Iraq war and other terrible mistakes the Bush administration has made. They were able to pull this off mainly because he got the American media system to sign on to a multitude of lies! PBS was one of the only media outlets that brought this lie into the public view. They did this in spite of being pushed back from the very same people who lied and are trying to cut more funding as we speak. The Bush administration succeeded in muting the truth on most of the corporate media through coercion, intimidation, and outright fake patriotism. To name a few of the PBS investigative programs that brought the truth to the American people, Frontline, Now with Bill Moyers, and the Newshour. In 2003 there weren't many places to go to get the truth, and PBS was there for the many who just had to have it. Because of this incredible investigative journalism, people rose up through many fronts including the internet where ordinary citizens took this information to the rest of the American public and finally some of the corporate media. I feel if PBS had more funding, that this American debacle could have been thwarted, and the truth would have been known before the damage was done. We would not be in Iraq right now!
This is only ONE reason why PBS is invaluable for Democracy!
Charles M. Pratt : The NYT's article on PBS and the NewsHour in particular was way off base. First, the NewsHour is the highlight of my day. My wife and I try to arrange our schedules to be home at the appointed hour. Second, in an age of growing incivility and increasing lack of seriousness about public issues, the NewsHour is pretty much the only source of serious, adult news programming. Third, the NewsHour's definition of news is not limited to political events, but includes arguments before the Supreme Court, literature, health and education, to mention only a few topics.
I can live without commercial TV, but I cannot live without the NewsHour.
I would have protested to the NYT about the column if the column was not so off base as to make it absurd.
I support the NewsHour. May it live a long and rewarding life.
Charlie Pratt
Geeorge Koynok : The TIMES' article cannot pass muster for relevancy regarding the PBS empire because while some comments were laughable, it provided poor or no evidence it knew what it was talking about regarding the worth of PBS to the average listener (a cursory glance at the "comments section" herewith published is adequate proof). In recent years the TIMES itself has gone through wars, recessions, strikes and innumerable family crises--who can forget the sorrowful reporter named Jayson Blair fabricating 36 stories of national interest, and the firing of national editor Howell Raines, and the attacks of the federal judiciary on reporter Judith Miller regarding CIA operative Valerie Plame, and the serious decline in its circulation (hidden from the public and the Security and Exchange Commission in a less than straightforward way for many years) by claiming an increase in the United States as a whole but not in the nucleus of its performance in and around New York City where its editions have woefully plunged in circulation. And while its owner-publisher, Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. denies the paper is biased in its coverage of national politics or the war in Iraq, one of its own editors has said (Daniel Okrent): "Of course, it is a liberal newspaper." Moreover, while mocking PBS for producing shows like FRONTLINE, NOVA and other similar programs, in the article at issue here, the writer seems totally ignorant of the facts that it is the TIMES itself which has built a cadre of television professionals and a cast of reporters who have themselves written for and produced many fine works for FRONTLINE, NOVA and other PBS programs over a period of many years! All this realls the old ditty applicable to the TIMES, but not to PBS: "The old grey mare, she ain't what she used to be...many long years ago." -George Koynok
Joanie : Praise be for grace notes in life. I would be bereft without public television; 30 second commercials, pledge drives and Hyacinth et al. And praise be for The Newshour. Honey tongued anchors and the incessant interuptive advertising on commercial TV does not cut it for me. Lehrer and team engage the brain.
Steve : McGrath suggests that viewers who prefer extended news broadcasts now have a wealth of choices comparable to the NewsHour on cable. This akin to claiming that those who prefer gourmet cooking now have a number of fast food outlets to choose from. McGrath also notes that Jim Lehrer is now 73, as if somehow that disqualifies him from relevance. I'm 47, and I much prefer the NewsHour to any of the fast-paced, splashy-graphic, dumbed-down alternatives available on CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or anywhere else.
Ann : I am amazed that the New York Times would question the relevancy of PBS. I am a viewer of PBS and find it far superior to other TV stations especially in news and other events coverage. I support PBS and support the comments of others regarding this matter.
Steve Littlefield : Every few years, those who hate public broadcasting drag out the old assertion that cable channels offer viable alternatives to PBS. Did you notice that Mr. McGrath didn't name a commercial channel alternative to the News Hour? I have yet to find an equal on the cable channels.
Regretfully, Americans seem less interested in newspapers and thoughtful news reporting. The implications of that fact go far beyond this discussion. Editions of the New York Times are now smaller in response to declining circulation and resulting buget pressures. Market forces are not to be ignored, but one requirement of a vibrant democracy is an informed public. Shall we surrender all of our quality reporting to the market place?
Dru Chichester : The suggestion that PBS is somehow irrelevant is an affront to common sense. When I read the Times article, I felt, again, that I am trapped in a Kafka novel. Profit driven radio/TV, with its mind-numbing stupidity, pounds away at a healthy intellectual curiosity until it grows stale and then morbid. With the advent of digital airwaves, which are being auctioned off at this time, PBS needs to be EXPANDED, its appeal broadened. Here is a common sense idea: trim some bling-bling from the overfed military-industrial ogre and properly fund PBS. A philanthrophic champion, a la George Soros or Bill Gates notwithstanding. In this age of information it is astonishing how little of it of any real worth is available on commercial TV/radio.
Patrice : I watch the Newshour, BBC, and business report every night and other news shows. I watch Masterpiece theater, mystery theater, and numerous other quality shows that are only available on PBS. President Bush and his administration should start watching PBS so they can become more edudated about the world cultures and events.
Edward Mills : PBS and books are how I travel and explore distant
lands and cultures. The recent Jane Austen series
has been a true pleasure. Without PBS, television
would be an ugly, barren landscape.
Shirley Lee : I agree with all the comments of support for PBS and News Hour. PBS makes winter evenings worthwhile at our house. It's singular, high-quality, non-commercial programing is truly an oasis, a cut above the rest. We will never let you be canceled if there is anything in our power to do about it. Thank you for being there!
Mariellen : A "public service" is just that: paid for by the public and available to all, whether or not any individual chooses to take advantage of it. I'm sure there are many that Mr. McGrath does avail himself of. His article fails to note that many households cannot afford or do not have access to the hundreds of cable/satellite channels he seems to prefer. And he certainly used an extremely poor choice of words to describe pledge programs: "the equivalent of water-boarding."
NYT commenter #797 thinks that popular (I'd say "worthwhile") PBS shows "would find a home somewhere else if PBS ceased to exist; that's the beauty of the free market." Well, the free market has given us much of the dreck that exists elsewhere on television. No other networks would rate most PBS programs to be "popular" enough to broadcast. That may be the effort underlying this scenario in the first place - to get rid of valuable, educational, creative, and informative programming altogether.
CO Leaverton : I agree with ALL of the ABOVE that support PBS and certainly, the NEWS HOUR...It shines and brightens like no other. I always feel I've LEARNED something instead of being "entertained".
Stan D'Souza : Without a doubt PBS shows have a higher quality and in-dept reporting than anything out there in commercial TVland. Was, is and will be a big PBS fan.
Arlene : I use the News Hour almost exclusively as my source for television news and watch it daily. I find it fair and impartial and I appreciate the lack of sensationalism and rude shouting. I sincerely hope that the show continues. I am also a viewer and supporter of other PBS shows and would strongly object to their removal.
barbara guillette : In 1991 when I graduated from college, I was greatly disatisfied with TV, Nova and PBS ,saved me from the crap that is our present day tV. I found the crap on TV, just that,, crap.I felt like I was in a desert and PBS was the intellectual oasis, how can anyone think PBS is not worth every penny.The crap still lives on dumbing down America, but the shining light that is PBS is as a beacon of intellectual stimulus. There are those who wish us to dumb down even more, for better control.I feel bad for us if PBS is ever touched. Leave it alone,for the ramifications if destroyed will be far worse than we suppose.
regards
Barbara J. Guillette, scholar, dissident.
Judy in VT : Is this some kind of joke? Is the NYT off its rocker? Must be, talk about relevancy! Until we got cable, used to have to watch PBS out of Maine, have always subscribed. My kids didn't even know there were other stations. It was even my pleasure to have been on the McNeil/Lehrer Report (name correct?)in 1983, when it was 1/2 hour. I like the multi-faceted hour-long NewsHour much better, and they all do an excellent job. Congratulations, Jim Lehrer and PBS for all you do. I used to respect the NYT, but they can go jump in the ocean, esp. since they're on-line free, helping to see that newspapers go down the tubes. (If I did read news on-line, I'd still subscribe to newspapers to pay for the jobs, on-site reporting, etc.) I hope The NYT gets the message. Thanks, PBS!
John Bailey : During Margaret Warner's reporting on the Kosovo independence story on Monday 2/18/08, she referenced Palestine as one of the countries that may seek independence as a consequence of Kosovo's actions. Unlike Kosovo, however, Palestine is/was not part of another country. Warner's suggestion implied that it was part of Israel. This is an outrageous claim, even if were not specifically made, and is another example of a bias in favor of Israel in News Hour reporting. Specifically, Judy Woodruff's interview with Jimmy Carter about his book "Peace not Apartheid" was blatantly partisan on her part.
John Bailey
Baltimore
Jill in San Francisco : The Newshour has been the only news program that my family and I have trusted for well over 25 years.
We are assured of vibrant debate over important topics with all views represented ( including those of many New York Times corerspondents). I am THRILLED that recently Jim Lehrer and staff have extended the Newshour to include live coverages
of major events - i.e. Super Tuesday, so I don't have to go to the Networks or wait for the Times the next morning.
Paula in East Lansing : The News Hour provides such a broad range of coverage that one wonders why anyone watches any other news source. Certainly CNN and MSNBC with their cadre of nonstop "analysts" can't compare with this REAL news organization. Of course their coverage of the starlet of the hour leaves something to be desired, but one can't have everything.
Mac : The Newshour is really the only news program on televison, the rest are editorial and becoming more so. If you want the story, both sides and as in depth as the media allows, its the Newshour and none other.
Mr Francis A Bayer : What a foolish question ask. Without PBS, those of us who continually wish to acquire reliable and unbiased information via the television medium would suffer a great loss. The information provided by the commercial television networks is fraught with the biases of the corporations who own, or purchase airtime. That is, if the information is presented at all. While there are PBS viewers who claim to view nothing else, I view a wide variety of commercial television but always return to PBS for the information that through bias or omission (of the commercial networks) was not presented.
Thank you for the opportunity to add my opinion to this discussion.
Mr. Francis A. Bayer
dick martin : PBS does a very good job in what they do. The New Hour and Jim Lehrer is a major independent broadcaster of the news. The News Hour gives an in depth,intelligent,timely,reliable information covering both sides of an issue. Other News programs mainly report in such a fashion so as to not upset their sponsor. The News Hour and Jim Lehrer attempts to remain unbiased. The other networks TV (ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX etc.) have contributed to the dumbing down of America.
PBS and the News Hour may not be perfect but they are the best we have now.
David : PBS produces views and venues unlike those of the for-profit sector. The for-profit sector is best for popular entertainment; PBS offers information and educational content you can find nowhere else.
Judy Barrett : PBS has always been the channel we watched the most. We do not have access to cable, and do not wish to pay the high monthly fees for Direct TV. However, the quality of programming on Wisconsin Public Television has sadly deteriorated. Most of the positive comments thus far seem to be from liberals wanting to keep PBS, which proves that the programming has an overwhelming far left-wing,liberal bias. Frontline is nothing but an hour longer hate program, pandering to those who are aimed at destroying the traditional United States. We no longer watch NewsHour because of the slant. There have been some "docudramas" that were so violently anti-Catholic that we were shocked they were even shown. PBS has become a mouthpiece for the radical liberals, promoting homosexuality, anti-Christianity and anti-Americanism. Our adult children, young people in their 30's, questioned how we can continue to watch PBS because of the liberal bias. They were brought up on PBS, but now refuse to watch it or let their children see it.
Live from Lincoln Center and Great Performances are rarely on, and they frequently feature obnoxious rock music, rather than traditional classical and opera.
Antiques roadshow and This Old House are broadcast twice a week, as is Ballroom dancing, which is pornographic in our estimation.
There are long, very long breaks between programs proting up coming programs, and the incessant plege drives with very boring new age speakers have really turned us away. There seems to be an agenda to force a mind-set that is opposed to any traditional values.
Moira : PBS or the local station? In Chicago we get 11, 20, 56 from PBS. WTTW 11 - with your feed - seems to be dumbing down to ball room dance shows. We subscribe to WYCC channel 20, though we watch 11 for the News Hour.
Barb : When I first heard about the Times article, I thought "you've got to be kidding." The News Hour is so well done both in content and the balance of its reporting. To call out the fact that Jim is 73 is ageism, pure and simple. There is some truth, I believe, to the comment about some PBS shows being tired (repetitive)or unsuccessfully copying network programming. Whatever the reasons for that (money, etc.)there are still many valuable shows on PBS---Tavis Smiley, Nova, Frontline, to name a few--which my DVR records on a regular basis!
Jack Crawford : PBS is a beacon of quality in a sea of news and programming drivel! Lied to by our government; lies and mostly lies by corporate advertising; and a plethora of cultureless programming on other channels, leaves PBS as one of the few news and program sources one can trust. We must keep PBS!
nancy w : The New York Times, in its hubris, should know that whereas some people like myself still tune in to the Newshour everyday for your in-depth analysis,we have stopped buying the NYTimes because the quality of their coverage of news has gone down. I find not much in their coverage which interest me except Section A and even there I've missed the quality reporting and topics that can "educate" the reader. They seem to be pursuing a more "dumbed down readership"
I am grateful to the Newshour for the continued quality of your reporters and commentators. Thank you.
By the way, I am unfortunately perhaps, what some of the media are no longer interested in pursuing. A seventy-four year old retired teacher! Hopefully, the Newshour feels it important to keep the interest and following of "old foggies!"
Sincerely, Nancy
K Collins : Public Radio and Public television are vital in this day and age of sound bites, misinformation, urban myth, distortion of fact, propagandizing by government officials and careless and inflammatory rhetoric. I rely on both as important sources for thoughtful discourse on issues that promotes analytical thinking and discourse with listeners, for educational programming, for the many documentaries and for presentations on art and history. I will continue to support Public Radio and Public television and advocate that we continue to support and expand this quality programming that sets a higher standard to inform our nation. Support for these means to educate and to inform our nation is crucial to the survival of our democracy.
William B : No more News Hour? I guess I'll pick up the latest on energy policy, health care, the War in Iraq, and other critical issues between commercials and the latest exploits of Britney and Co. on Murdoch TV (or maybe not).
val gifford : Here in rural west Alabama we get only 2 over the air channels, ABC and PBS. We watch exactly 1 program weekly on ABC. But PBS is on every evening for the Newshour, American Experience, Nova and other science offerings, Frontline, and the full Friday evening talk shows(not to mention Masterpiece). We could receive cable tv but there is really only one thing we want, better reception for PBS and since they do not offer PBS, we don't opt for cable. It is very simple, we get our news and entertainment almost exclusively from PBS and NPR. I think that threats to reduce gov't support to Public Broadcasting and Radio is a threat to the citizenry, and should be fought vigorously.
Judith M. : Is PBS relevant? For this family, PBS is the only station we watch (with the occasional exception of a ball game or local weather). For our news, we rely on public television (the News Hour) and public radio. We have been known to listen to the XMPR broadcast of the News Hour if we have missed the TV broadcast. We trust the balanced, in-depth coverage and know that we will receive more than a sound bite put together by a reporter rushing to meet deadline and grab headlines. In our state (Tennessee), public television has been the only source of programs that deal in-depth with local history, issues,and interests. Programming like "Beautiful Tennessee" and "Memories of Nashville" would not exist without PBS. Is PBS relevant? If PBS did not exist, this household would probably not watch TV at all. Thank you for the opportunity to thank all the folks who work so hard to keep PBS alive!
Marvin Silver : The New York Times has been wrong before and they are terribly wrong now. I don't believe that I would ever turn on my TV if it weren't for PBS
Colt : With PBS keeping watch on politics, it's no wonder some politicians want to cut funding for PBS stations. Where else do you find the same mix of Arts, Nature, Science, etc. programming? Nowhere. That's why I support PBS. And just think, if the politicians would clean up their act and get government to function as it should, then PBS would become a forum for presenting accomplishments nationally and internationally. At present, it is still a forum like no other on the air.
Larry : As so many have also stated, PBS is certainly relevant to me and my family. The News Hour is unique, and uniquely necessary and good, for a functioning democracy to keep trying to function in face of forces that keep trying to have just their view prevail.
Jimmie Van : I am so proud to be a member of PBS, it is the ONLY worthwhile TV to watch. I enjoy and am informed by the News-Hour with Jim Lehrer, without politically based or the corporate interests of NBC,ABC,CBS or FOX. Just the facts. Outstanding. Please keep up the great work.
Judy L Ness : PBSs Relevency - the person who wrote that is a jerk.
1. The Lehrer Report - Everynight at 6:00 PM I turned it on to get an indept view of the news stories. I love Sheilds & Brooks and even though I do not agree with David Brooks much I have developed a fondness for him and therefore listen to his vies.
2. This Old House - I am a Tom Silva groupie. I love Tom and I have loved this show for years. When living in PA I could watch 3 different PBS channels and could watch TOH reruns to my hearts content.
What PBS provides the viewer is indepth, intelligent, interesting reporting. You do not often get that from the talking heads on the News channels.
Thank you for being therre.
Grady Lee Howard : Charles McGrath's New York Times article is not that threatening, but he appears to have only a cursory knowledge of the PBS situation. The only real threat is a possible funding reduction by Congress. As most funding comes from members and underwriters this might not spell the demise of U.S. public broadcasting, unless fascists in our government gained the leverage to legislate its sale to private interests. I am of a mind that NPR and PBS are long overdue for independence from uneven legislative support. The problem is the same for Amtrak and the USPS, both absolutely necessary for dependable, affordable services, but not properly appreciated. The religion of the free market as universal arbiter of life on Earth spoils a great many wonderful public assets. I'm sure there are salivating entrepreneurs out there eager to ravish NPR and PBS, and reduce them to the mediocrity and manipulation (censorship) of poorer cable networks.
It is true that NPR has tried to be trendy and used programming expertise to maximize listenership at the expense of depth and accuracy but this has not translated well into dues paying membership. The demographic is older all the time, and it is the dedicated listener who pledges. Even those in assisted living need quality entertainment and information.
PBS is at a disadvantage to NPR because, although radio is not as addictive as TV, the radioscape in America is truly a mindless wasteland. Satellite radio would not be possible if this were not so. Tv is a druglike means of escape, be it sports (gambling) or sexual titillation, or tips couched in advertising. Even local news is half infomercial. PBS has stimulants for those trying to wake up to reality (Moyers Journal, NOW, Frontline) but is also a sleeping pill with Antiques Roadshow and British sitcoms. When they raise funds comes the DO Wap and Jackie Kennedy, not what the core audience ordered.
PBS needs to realize that they can have viability with a dedicated, contributing core audience and find a way to survey and cultivate this most valuable sustenance.
Much of PBS is tired. I am sick of Ken Burns scrapbook factory glossing over of history and picking easy and noncontroversial subject matter. I like Michael Bacon's scores but it is the Burns brother who should move to the History Channel.There is also an entrenched interlocking management at PBS that keeps it backward, focused even on the reactionary parts of high culture. They need to be purged and replaced with innovative intellectuals not revolving back to the usual foundations and institutions. Management by the public owner-members by plebicite might be the answer.
Fear is the major impediment to meaningful PBS programming. As the political climate clears and financial dominance abates PBS can become the vanguard of public service programming. You're saying to yourself,"This can never happen." The truth is that it has to happen for the planet to be saved as the home for human civilization. It will only be part of a bigger revolutionary solution, but I hope not to see Condoleeza and Wolfewitz guillotined on PBS. The real threat in the world is not to PBS, but is the threat to our erstatz leadership by a mobilized public.
Hal Mack : Jim: Your News Hour is the best news program on television allowing me to get unbiased and in depth information on the important events here and abroad. Your show is a national treasure, so please continue. I especially appreciate the comments and analysis of Shields and Brookes. Thanks for keeping us informed.
Dave : Oh, for crying out loud! Relevant? It's more relevant than ever! I've been watching for 35 years. Not only is PBS relevant, it is necessary, it is excellent, and its current affairs, arts, and educational programming should be required viewing for all of us. What's up at the Times? Have they gone bonkers, asking a question such as this?
magie bell : i am disappointed but not surprised that the current administration wants to cut more of PBS funding, i just saw yesterday on Charlie Rose how research and development in the country is being cut also. it seems anything worthwhile and positive is under the knife. the News Hour with Jim Leher is so informative and well rounded. the international news is something that is sadly lacking on other stations, all they have to offer is hype and the very limited and biased views of their news personalities. keep up the good work Jim!!!
vicky : The current primaries really pointed out what I have so appreciated about the News Hour. After listening to local news and then spending some time listening to CNN (which, of course, is the news that feeds on negativity and whips any issues with theatrical potential into a frenzy, I cut myself off all coverage except the News Hour and printed material! I have counted on the News Hour for at least 20 years, especially if there is a current news story or issue that is likely to become "theatrically addressed." I very much appreciate the interviews and topics overall on the News Hour. As for public television in general, I really do not watch "that much" television, but have made a point of watching several specials a year.
Minneapolis, MN viewer.
Jeffrey A. James, Ph.D. : Can we live without PBS? Can we live without bread, the BBC, books? Of course not. PBS is as essential as air for us Americans, because we need honest, straight-forward information to maintain our democracy, tattered as it is. Rely on specials, other news sources, occasional Discovery Channel series, etc.? Nope; we need the NewsHour, with avuncular Jim Lehrer and crew every night, to think clearly about the wars, the budget, the environment with a grounding in fact. And those assisted living listeners that McGrath mentions? They need news too! You go, PBS, you're terrific!
Margot VanEtten : Jim--
The News Hour is the only program on television that my family watches every night. We appreciate the depth of the coverage, the thoughtfulness of the presentation, the fairness and balance and the civility of discourse. You provide a much needed alternative to the shallow infotainment that passes for news on so much of commercial television.
The Times article also failed to note the other important benefits of public television:
-public affairs, local porgramming, breadth and variety of programming
-wonderful series-not only the masterpiece theatre classics, but new material like the adaptation of one of Tony Hillerman's novles a few years ago.
-PBS is unique: it provides access to cultural programming like opera, dance, concerts and musical performances which are unavailable on cable or network TV.
-I do agree that some of the programming has suffered in the past years, due to the constant, misguided cutbacks enacted by Congress.
-I am gratefuol to have one channel I can turn to without fear of inadvertantly exposing my family to inapprogpriately violent, sexual or sheer crass material.
--On the public airwaves, there should be one station dedicated to the public good rather than simply to offering eyes to advertisers. That station is PBS, and my family would feel profoundly impoverished without it.
Joann : I don't care much for classical music but pbs radio and tv has so much more! They are fair minded, intersting and make you think, not as much as say Big Brother, or the Bad Girls Club lol, but once in awhile I like listening to something that educates me, amuses me, and makes me think. So keep your hands off pbs, it is one thing on tv and radio we can point to with pride as Americans.
Ron Patiro : I stopped paying for cable because of the trash that passes for "news". This country's fourth estate of journalism is in serious decay and cutting the funding of a non-biased source of information for a democracy is very suspicious that one doesn't want to operate in an ideal democracy.
Annafiglia : After reading the NYT article, I suspect that the writer does not spend much of his time watching Public TV. There is a great deal more breadth than indicated and while the incursion of front end commercials is sadly upon us, we still manage to watch an entire program without interruptions. I personally can't imagine life without public TV or Radio. I watch the Canadian Broadcasting Company and they are now totally ad driven to the detriment of their programming.
Jennifer : PBS is one of the few sources of unbiased information and entertainment. I can understand why the NYT questions it's value. Our culture has become obsessed with profit, consumerism and the outrageous. Whether or not this should be encouraged should be the real debate. PBS does not support this trend in our culture. For that, I am grateful.
Charles G. Shaver : Now, more than ever, it is important to have PBS as an alternative to even more commercialized Media. While I don't personally enjoy many of the programs offered, and believe there is plenty of room for improvement, I do believe in the concept and practice of 'public broadcasting,' if it is in the American public's best interests. Also, I'd like to propose a constitutional amendment to either make PBS fully funded with American tax dollars (cancel wars, perhaps; eliminating annoying pledge drives and commercial endorsements) and totally autonomous (to question and/or stress the constitutionality of all major candidates and/or issues, minimally), and/or require commercial broadcasters to replace infomercials with public programs. The rights and welfare of an informed 'We the People of the United States...' are mandated by the Constitution, not diversions, distractions and corporate profits.
RichardL : The News Hour (KTCA Minneapolis) is the only news program on TV today that contains substance. Commercial network news has abandoned all pretense of journalism and has become purely entertainment, devoid of all but sensationalism and fluff.
DAVIE ALLEN : I'm a man of limited educational ability but I know that PBS is the best news source because reading the NYT is the last thinf that I Would do.
PS - I always thought that Brooke Shields was hot ever since she did the movie BLUE LAGOON.
Jelsey, lebanon : I commented on the NYTimes article extolling the absolute necessity of The News Hour for balance and depth of reporting. I also suggested that dropping PBS would introduce a new Dark Age.
I've been a PBS viewer since the channel went on the air decades ago. It's still the best!
Bill Fulto : PBS is one of three stations that I watch, the other two being Canadian public stations. The Lehrer newshour is thoughful and well-balanced. I don;t know where I would get my U.S. news without it.
Danforth : While I am not yet ready for assisted living, I can remember Robin McNeill. If ratings are the only indication of value then I surrender: I have lived too long. The News Hour is the only news program I watch regularly. It tries to educate its viewers in some depth. If the rest of the TV audience cannot devote 10 to 15 minutes to understanding important issues, that is no argument against education. It is a service to the rest of us who seek knowledge and cannot get it from confrontation or other talking heads. Shields and Brooks are the best 15 minutes on TV.
Anna M. : I am 33 years old and certainly not part of the AARP demographic that the NYTimes article mentions. I listen to the News Hour every day and record in on my DVR so I never have to miss an episode (especially Shields and Brooks, who rock my world!) Where else can we get in depth reports on the state of the arts in this country, challenging opinion pieces, and daily reminders about the true cost of this war (the moment of silence at the end of the show when the honor role goes up)? The News Hour is certainly not "fusty" but thought provoking and in depth.
Not on the topic of the News Hour, but on the topic of the "all Jane Austen format" comment - it seems to me that the author of the NYTimes piece writes from a perspective of remarkable gender predjudice. Masterpiece is not running an all Jane Austen format, but a series on the masterworks of Austen, one of English literatures most gifted writers. It also happens to be a series that appeals to educated women, a demographic not really served by commerical telivision these days. Is Lifetime geared towards college educated, intelligent, witty women? I think not!
Long live the News Hour and Masterpiece!
Michael : I was shocked after reading the NYT article, it goes to show that the paper is way out of tune with mainstream America. After reading many of the posted comments,it reveals that PBS is truely #1 in public trust. I believe the Bush budget cuts for PBS funding are another attempt to quiet the truth, perhaps he saw the Frontline episodes "Bush's War" and "Cheney's Law" and can't face the truth, much less be trusted.
Lotti : Newshour answers my need for honest,unbias news. I like in in depth detail for all items. I don't need to hear hollywood gossip with or the latest muder with my news
Dorothy Luckie : Yes PBS is still relevant - esp the News Hour.
I was annoyed when I read the article on Sunday esp. the comment about the News Hour not changing. As a point of fact the News Hour has changed over time. The question is must everything change - esp if it is offering a a quality product. The NYT hasn't really changed that much over time (good), while CNN has changed to try and keep up with the Fox/MSNBC ratings (a bad change). The News Hour offers real news not 30 second sound bites like the Big 3 or a continuous droning of some irrelevant topic like the 24 hour 'news' channels.
Informagination : It is hard for us to believe that PBS in general and the Lehrer News Reort in particular could possibly be described as "unnecessary". The Lehrer report is our favorite newscast because of its outstanding reporters--all of them--who provide in-depth reporting on the important issues of the day. They present their information quietly, graciously and with great intelligence. No loud music, no glitzy graphics, no shouting, talking heads, just good, solid news. We would miss it greatly were it "silenced".
PBS in general produces excellent shows of high quality. We watch these stations more than any others.
Craig : PBS is my station of choice, especially the News Hour. Commercial television is going the way of AM radio, downhill. I watch TV to be entertained or informed and PBS does this so much better than the others. The lack of commercials is a pleasant addition to the alternative of commercial TV.
adam : I am almost 40 and I have been watching PBS since I was 4. With small kids, PBS is a must, although there are some very good alternatives like Noggin on cable. But we can do without Disney and Nick.
As for me, The News Hour is by far the most important news show on TV. I have to admit, it can be almost too "quiet" and sometimes lull you to sleep, but nonetheless, I trust it fully and know I'm getting the best information TV has to offer on world events.
PBS has the best educational programs with NOVA and Frontline, but there are a lot of programs, mostly of the British sort, that I find odd.
Mary Ann : Particularly for those of us who can't (or won't) afford "cable", PBS is the only source of intelligent, informative, and quality programming. I'm amazed that anyone would question the value of PBS!
Marion L. : The last thing our country needs is a less-informed public. It is very important to maintain the best source of balanced, in-depth discussion on important topics, as well as the best source of diverse cultural experiences, educational programming for children, and information on the world in which we live. PBS is all those and more. It is in our national interest to provide this venue to all who would partake and it is very short-sighted to expect commercial outlets to fill the need.
carol marshall : one of the best things our government could do for us would be to increase funding to pbs. the newshour is one of the best shows anyone broadcasts. frontline is indispensible. america at a crossroads, independent lens, the list of thoughtful programs is deep. pbs addresses the environment and other problems more consistently and intelligently than any other network, except possibly cnn, which has a narrower focus. my one wish would be for more adult programming during the day, but i'm gratified to read that people appreciate the child-oriented daytime schedule and believe that while our government refuses to take education seriously, pbs is probably a necessary blessing to those attempting to raise thoughtful, healthy young ones in this culture.
one of the most encouraging signs i've seen lately that the country may be returning to its senses was notice given on nbc news of the frontline program broadcast last night. i mean this in the most secular possible way: bless you people. and thank you.
John Andrews : With its intelligent and open-minded viewpoint, PBS fills a void in an otherwise very bleak television landscape in the United States today. The NewsHour consistently remains the best and most fairly reported news program in the country, and its loss would be tragic.
The Angry Moderate : The News Hour is by far the only news program worth watching on television. It is balanced and in-depth in a way that you will never find on a 24-hour news channel. You get all sides of a story in a broadcast that does not have pundits shouting at each other to see who'd the loudest. It's excellence is unsurpassed.
Additionally, PBS offers local programming and news that cable TV does not address. This is not to say that PBS does not need to strive to keep up with the changing times, but the News Hour's switch to HD programming and the availability of podcast shows that someone is not asleep at the switch.
Kay : I live in Toronto, and regret to have to say that I watch PBS (WNED Buffalo) more than any other TV station for its news analyses, uninterrupted movies, opera and Broadway shows. My life would suffer significant decrease in its quality without PBS.
Jim S : PBS is needed in the U.S. Look at Canada whose CBC programs, both on TV and Radio, are far superior than any of those produced by U.S. commercial TV or radio stations. Commercial TV in the U.S. is for people with low intelligence and news reports on such TV are close to hysterical. PBS provides the only calibrated reporting regardless of political or financial implications, which is obviously not the case for commercial TV. PBS, as far as I am concerned, needs more (tax-payer) funding to provide a nonbiased analysis of news reporting and to continue the excellent programming it already does. Keep up the good work and ignore those NY Times jerks! Jim S.
Richard : For my money, PBS is one of only a few stations
on television that offers its viewers quality shows;
the others being the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel, A&E, and the Discovery Channel. PBS is a "national treasure" as far as I'm concerned.
Mary Luke Baldwin : I can't imagine life without The News Hour, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, Tavis, and the wonders from Frontline to Nature and on and on. PBS is home to me. Thanks to all who provide it.
commonscents : Infotainment or news? A host who can actually locate iran on a map, or a host whose primary qualification is comestic surgery and/or agressive/obnoxious syndrome? As a news junkie who would rather have a full meal, rather than "news bites" hidden under a cold gravy of rancor and self-aggrandizement, pbs is almost the only alternative. Cable or network will occassionally surprise, but it is like looking for a needle in a cactus patch; unnecessarily painful and extremely tedious. pbs is consistently good. In spite of the fact that there is now as much "advertising" on pbs as there is on the network, it is at least loaded at the front and back. And in spite of this unfortunate development, there is still much that pbs can do, that cable and network cannot do: Allow a guest expert to complete a thought without interruption. Allow enough time to fully discuss one subject before switching to a Britney Spears update. Hire professionals without regard to "appearance". Air programming that has a limited appeal but uplifts something other than breasts. Sorry NYTimes. You really haven't watched enough pbs or commercial TV/cable, or you couldn't have reached the conclusion you reached. Just for news and analysis if should not only stay, but be required. And much of the additional programming is superior. Cable does do some excellent dramatic shows, and the networks do a good job of ...................... well, ok, sports. But neither replaces the job done by pbs. Give it up.
Anne : I agree with Frank that PBS is an oasis in the garbage of commercial TV. It's the only reason I even WATCH TV. And THE NEWS HOUR pulls my day together. Jim Lehrer has taken Walter Cronkite's place in my life. I trust the news staff and always enjoy the analysis of Shields and Brooks. I do think that PBS makes an effort to be objective in their reporting. Hang in there!
jim : PBS continues to be part of my TV viewing. The character of the programming is unique for its variety and quality and there are no comparable offerings over the air or on cable. The Times referred to changes in quality and it may be true to some extent. However, even if this is the case I have noticed a deterioration in the quality of offerings on cable channels such as A&E, History, and MSNBC with increasingly sensational and sleazy programming. The differing underlying programming objectives clearly differentiates PBS from the "others" to the viewers advantage. We live in a society that is said to value diversity and choice. There is a societal advantage to having a source of programming that does not depend on the sale of advertising for support and having one place a viewer can go to get it
colleen walsh : The NewsHour on PBS is the only news where I believe I hear both sides of any issue. Moreover, I hear stories there that receive no attention on other stations - often these are stories I wish I could ignore but which I realize make me a better, more completly informed citizen and voter. I also watch other PBS shows - Frontline, Washington Week, Mystery and concerts for fun as well as programs about the history of this great Nation. I cannot imagine life without PBS and regard it as sometimes the best reason I pay taxes to my Government. PBS is a gift to the Nation.
Jean M. Hood : "The News Hour" is the only program on television that presents both sides of an issue so that intelligent viewers can make informed judgements concerning current events. Experts are interviewed in depth and even allowed to finish their comments without being rudely interrupted or yelled at by a called "journalist". This news program is unique; it's one of the primary reasons I support publc television.
Marly Keller : I depend on Newshour for national and international news because it's reliable, not sensational and in depth. It is trustworthy. I love the Culture segments. Brooks and Shield are delightful, l especially to watch Jim L's twinkling eyes. Their coverage of the Iraq war is without equal.
John A Moritz : Your news programing is one of a few, BBC being another, which gives us real news and not the "dumbed" down product found amongst the so called "big three" TV networks. I have nothing against big companies and doubt they are out to get you and yours but do think that the "big three" see you as a mirror which shames their juvenile version of the news. I'm afraid the real culprit is the viewing public who seem to like the "big three" stuff but that only means you should keep up the good work.
Peter A Lubke : ALOHA....I live in KAU HAWAII...a very rural part of the Big Island of Hawaii...For 13 years I have only had PBS broadcasting...No cable no satillite...I have raised my two boys on nothing but PBS programming!!!And my wife an I religiously watch the Business report and the News Hour everynight.....There is no better programming on Television Today!!!!...Jim Lehrer and his accomplished team represent the standard for Journalism in the world...They are truthful honest and above all else uninfluenced by the type of media hype that is driving this country to ruin...Friday nights programming on PBS is the only way to touch the core issues that face us and our nation and should be required veiwing by all concious Americans concerned with where their country is being pushed....without PBS the world is a slighted place.....sincerely Peter A Lubke
Susan J. Heller : We need you! Where else will we get Great Performances and Live from Lincoln Center and the Newshour and all the other wonderful programs that are only on public television?!
richard price : I want to comment on the article about PBS' relevancy in today's television environment.
A lot has been made of the dumbing down of our population. We can thank commercial television for this. If the Rupert Murdoch's of this world had their way. We would all be forced to watch innane sitcoms, be forced to watch news programs that are slanted to their point of view and be bombarded with commercials.
I watch PBS exclusively because I know I'm going to see informative and objective news and documentaries on important issues affecting our world. All programming on televison should follow the PBS model. If it wasn't for PBS I wouldn't watch television. Keep up the good work
Shame on the reporter who suggested PBS is not relevant. With newspaper revenues declining, we can see what the general public thinks of the relevancy of the newspaper industry.
C.E. Kagan : The writer of the article - I will not grace him with the title of author - is all wet. While the News HOur could use a little "face-lift" as far as format - it is the only thing available that presents ideas and not who are the latest casualties on the local scene. While the points of view are not always balanced and are presented by "suits" - they are the folks who are doing the research or are engaged in the areas under discussion. It is up to the viewer to go further and read more in order to make informed decisions.
As for the rest of PBS programming - it is usually intelligent, informative, engaging - and not dumbed down to meet a minimum standard.
My TV set wouldn't know what it means to be tuned to anything other than PBS - and either would I.
Harriett Viewer : The main reason we get cable is to make sure our PBS station comes in clear and reliably. We rely on PBS for news, for education and for pleasure. All the cable stations together cannot touch the quality of PBS. Jim Leher and the News Hour got us through the Bush years. We look forward to many more years of PBS. Never ever stop broadcasting. You are a lifeline for thoughtful people.
Aid : Rather than answer the Times question with my feelings of fury, let me just add my wholehearted support for the News Hour. I watch little TV other than PBS. Instead of cutting funds, we should be increasing them!
LARRY V. : Bullies yelling at you in sound bites is not the best way of telling you what is going on in the world or even in our country. The other networks preach like evangelical ministers to those bereft of personal conviction and, hallelujah, are made comfortable in their insular guarded US community.
PBS, NPR, PRI do less of this and try to respect the listeners/watcher by presenting various opinions on any topic and I think they have it right and do it well. Rotten parochial politicians giving bad names to those who guide our country regularly worm their way out of the woodwork and must not again destroy one of the only free-speech organs left to us. DORETTE BURNHAM above02/20/08 HAS IT RIGHT!!
Ray Schmudde : Once again corporate government/corporate media is attacking the only middle-of-the-road TV station we receive, PBS. Where else can one find near to objective and in-depth reporting? Not Fox, not CNN, not the networks, only on PBS. The Times piece quoted Newt's old saying that PBS was "liberal," the triumph of Republican rhetoric over sense. There is no liberal TV, but I'll take The News Hour over any broadcast news program/channel. The News Hours hasn't dumbed down their coverage the way ATC on NRP has. The American public deserves news unfiltered by advertiser/owner influence. How else do we keep our democracy?
Priscilla Hildum : PBS TV is the only channel we watch outside of a few sports events. I'd drop our limited cable service if it went away and go for over the air. I see very few programs in the newspaper weekly TV guide that look remotely interesting or entertaining. Unimagineable triteness and silliness seem to pervade the commercial schedules.
For thought provoking news and current events programs, there is hardly another TV source. The News Hour has the best interviewer, Margaret Warner, on any network - consistently excellent and always on point and clear.
In all the prating about democracy that we hear these days, nothing is included about the need for an informed and thoughtful citizenry to make it work well. PBS goes a long way to help with that. A lot of us need the News Hour, Frontline, The American Experience, Nova, to cite a few of PBS programs.
Priscilla Hildum
Marybeth and Mal : We have been fans of PBS for more than forty years and so have our young-middle-aged children; so it's not just a gray-haired audience. We are so grateful for intelligent news and analysis, not to mention wonderful cultural, information and entertainment programs like Masterpiece, Mystery, This Old House, Antiques Road Show, Nova,American Experience, History Detectives, etc. etc. Network and Cable programming is, for the most part offensive and insultingly dumbed-down. The only thing wrong with PBS is that it doesn't get enough money to improve its already fine programming.
bginz : In a nation of cable channels that publish opinion as news (O'Reilly, Beck, Dobbs, etc) we need programs like the PBS news hour to provide balance. The PBS news hour assumes its viewers are intelligent, well educated, and can form their own opinions about the news, unlike so many of the cable channel presentations of the news. In addition, and no dis-resepct to the network 1/2 news shows, worthy news stories just cannot be covered in 30 minutes. I watch PBS news hour every night.
In addition almost every night I find something on PBS to watch. I enjoy the history programs, American Experience, Masterpiece Theatre, and Independent Lens. There will always be a place for thoughtful, entertaining, educational program.
Stephen : One highlight of every week day for me is The News Hour, and Friday with Brooks and Shields is a real treat. The editorial selection of newsworthy stories from all spheres of activity is well judged, the people selected to present a range of educated views on each story or issue are top-notch, and the interviewing is thoroughly informed, well directed, and respectful. In a continent sorely lacking facts and dialogue on critical issues, this program is remarkable and necessary. The same can be said for Bill Moyers' The Journal. I'll not rave about other PBS programs, only to say that, in general, PBS is a quantum leap above anything else available.
Betsy McCall : PBS is the only truly quality source of news and thoughtful, provocative discussions and information in the media today! It certainly is necessary and vital to an open, unbiased and fair society, especially as media monopolies are more possible than ever. We are in danger of losing 'free press' status if we begin to shut down public broadcasting services.
OldGoat : PBS provides balance, quality and stability which is abysmally lacking in most broadcast television. Proof of balance can be found in PBS surveys, and a 2005 UCLA study which determined that the News Hour was closest to the average voter. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx. The noticeable lack of hyperbole, sensationalism or scantily clad bodies underscores the quality in PBS programs, whether Nova, the News Hour, or Masterpiece Theatre. And while the Times article decries that many PBS programs have been around for 20 years or more, we should applaud the stability of allowing programs to mature and bring years of experience to bear, instead of running for 6-12 shows until the newness wears off. Do we really want to be left with an ocean of short-run series, reality shows, and news commentators who didn't vote in an election which didn't have a Bush or Clinton as a candidate?
Funding national programming through taxes is not unique -- many other democratic countries fund national TV programming with a tax on televisions. It's worth a few dollars from our income taxes to retain some quaility amidst the desert of market-driven programming.
OldGoat : PBS provides balance, quality and stability which is abysmally lacking in most broadcast television. Proof of balance can be found in PBS surveys, and a 2005 UCLA study which determined that the News Hour was closest to the average voter. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx. The noticeable lack of hyperbole, sensationalism or scantily clad bodies underscores the quality in PBS programs, whether Nova, the News Hour, or Masterpiece Theatre. And while the Times article decries that many PBS programs have been around for 20 years or more, we should applaud the stability of allowing programs to mature and bring years of experience to bear, instead of running for 6-12 shows until the newness wears off. Do we really want to be left with an ocean of short-run series, reality shows, and news commentators who didn't vote in an election which didn't have a Bush or Clinton as a candidate?
Funding national programming through taxes is not unique -- many other democratic countries fund national TV programming with a tax on televisions. It's worth a few dollars from our income taxes to retain some quaility amidst the desert of market-driven programming.
R.McClunie : PBS is without a doubt, the only necessary network for this nation. Its quality news programming, which focuses on the public's need to be informed with relevant, truthful and "unclouded by opinions and political spin" news, gives those of the American viewing public who truly want to be informed, sources of information to make intelligent decisions about this world in which we live.
The government's decision to decrease funding is clear evidence of the political wizards' need to keep the public blind to the truth (by which they keep things politically advantageous to themselves and their constituents).
Anne Rabkin : Without PBS, television in the US would be greatly lacking. PBS provides a wealth of educational and quality entertainment television programs that are all too rare. It is also critical to have these great programs available to those who do not have expanded cable. Some cable channels, such as the Discovery channel, provide similar quality programs, however for the many Americans who cannot afford cable, PBS provides this valuable asset to all.
OldGoat : PBS provides balance, quality and stability which is abysmally lacking in most broadcast television. Proof of balance can be found in PBS surveys, and a 2005 UCLA study which determined that the News Hour was closest to the average voter. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx. The noticeable lack of hyperbole, sensationalism or scantily clad bodies underscores the quality in PBS programs, whether Nova, the News Hour, or Masterpiece Theatre. And while the Times article decries that many PBS programs have been around for 20 years or more, we should applaud the stability of allowing programs to mature and bring years of experience to bear, instead of running for 6-12 shows until the newness wears off. Do we really want to be left with an ocean of short-run series, reality shows, and news commentators who didn't vote in an election which didn't have a Bush or Clinton as a candidate?
Funding national programming through taxes is not unique -- many other democratic countries fund national TV programming with a tax on televisions. It's worth a few dollars from our income taxes to retain some quaility amidst the desert of market-driven programming.
OldGoat : PBS provides balance, quality and stability which is abysmally lacking in most broadcast television. Proof of balance can be found in PBS surveys, and a 2005 UCLA study which determined that the News Hour was closest to the average voter. http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx. The noticeable lack of hyperbole, sensationalism or scantily clad bodies underscores the quality in PBS programs, whether Nova, the News Hour, or Masterpiece Theatre. And while the Times article decries that many PBS programs have been around for 20 years or more, we should applaud the stability of allowing programs to mature and bring years of experience to bear, instead of running for 6-12 shows until the newness wears off. Do we really want to be left with an ocean of short-run series, reality shows, and news commentators who didn't vote in an election which didn't have a Bush or Clinton as a candidate?
Funding national programming through taxes is not unique -- many other democratic countries fund national TV programming with a tax on televisions. It's worth a few dollars from our income taxes to retain some quaility amidst the desert of market-driven programming.
Arnie Reiner : My wife and I feel the News Hour is the best TV news vehicle. We don't watch the network news shows because they don't have the depth of content on important topics of national and international concern and they're loaded with commercial breaks. Your special wide ranging features are also rich in content. Please keep up the good work.
George : PBS matters very much to me.
I like & need it.
We have two PBS stations in my market.
My critiques of PBS,
I liked when it was 'educational' TV, i got a lot out of watching actual educational programs.
American is Obese already, do we really need hours & hours of cooking shows?
It has gotten a bit tepid as of late, afraid to have any convictions i guess.
I watch Democracy Now on my other PBS station instead of the News Hour, because they real pith, purpose which gives their broadcasts meaning.
Pretending there are two worthy sides to everything give liars & pretenders cover for their crimes.
Sorry News Hour, but that makes you accomplices to a bunch of crooks in officialdom.
Eric : PBS is a necessary entity in my family. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is a forum where I learn something new without talking heads yelling at each other. My wife loves Nova, Frontline and Antiques Roadshow. And my 7-month old son loves Clifford, the big red dog. As a Republican, I am appalled that many in my party use PBS as their whipping post for budget cuts. How about closing all tax loopholes and sweet deals for fat cats before closing shop on PBS!
Frances Lysaught : The most compelling reason PBS is necessary, more necessary than ever, is the fact that its quality, objectivity, depth and breadth cannot be found anywhere in the media for "free." Other quality programs mentioned in the Times article require subscription to view. PBS is truly free for all. This country claims to protect the rights of all. I demand that my right to quality programming not be banished because of Neilson ratings. My tax dollars must continue to support quality programming for all ages on a wide variety of topics, even though majority of viewers aren't attracted to its superior intellectual and educational content.
J. N. Uhl : I read it with great surprise. I love PBS, The Newshour and I didn't appreciate the swipe at Jim Leher, a national treasure. The Newshour is the only news show I will watch and is essential for our citizens and national interest. I will stand on the wall to defend it and NPR. Like a Federal judge, Jim has a lifetime appointment. Continue to shine.
Gloria Dougherty : We watch the News Hour every night and would be devastated without it. Non sensational, non 'of the moment' we feel it gives us a level headed overview of the news. This is the one national news format which routinely gives an 'in depth' view of INTERNATIONAL news. Jim Lehrer and his team should be in more households not fewer. Keep PBS and the News Hour.
Justine Dakin Schoeplein : Yes! The Jim Lehrer News Hour is indeed relevant and provides a vital public service to anyone interested in sophisticated analytical coverage of national and internatiopnal news. I either watch or listen (when re-broadcast on NPR) to The News Hour daily. It is my lst choice for TV/radio news coverage. I appreciate the breadth and depth of the coverage and the range of guests invited to be on the program. The News Hour is a primary reason that many of us support our NPR/PBS stations all across the nation. To be sure, media coverage of national and international news is very competitive in a 24/7 news cycle world, but the Lehrer News Hour sets a high standard for excellence and I expect it to continue to do so. I was very unimpressed with the NY Times article, and I wanted to voice my enthusiastic support for the News Hour and all who work there to give us the news coverage we expect.
Justine Schoeplein
Urbana, IL
Nancy : PBS needs support, not a hatchet job. The only important comment " the best solution . . .more money,not less" is couched in negative terms. The complaints of reruns, limited programming, and advertisements, all result from the failure of the US to give financial support to its public television. The programs McGrath looks back fondly to (e.g."Upstairs Downstairs) were the result of Britain's support for good TV.
His alternatives ignore the cost of subscription to cable, the far greater intrusion of commercials, and the veritable wasteland that is offered. Radio and TV are different media, and the success of one is not an indication of the failure of the other. Opera on NPR does not substitute for opera on TV. It is Congress thqt is to blame, not PBS.
Paul Sapelak : The News Hour is essential to maintaining a well informed citizenry. It becomes even more important as the other networks' news broadcasts become clogged with commercials and soft news puff pieces.
N. Hughes : We depend on the News Hours 1 hour news cast with no fluff or unnecessary violence, Washington Week, Now, Bill Moyers and Frontline for National and International news. No where else will you find a Live From Lincoln Center. Nova is often an assigned science program for students. PBS is a priceless asset to this country and needs increased funding.
Roger Jobin : We no longer pay to watch television. We found cable, dish, etc. filled with meaningless and in some cases insulting programming. Being able to tune into PBS to watch something meaningful and thoughtful is a welcome alternative to cable and main stream channels. Though PBS has had to turn to corporate sponsorship to survive, their advertising is nothing compared to the bombastic and tasteless advertising on other stations. Some Republicans would have all of us spend our television time watching nonsense rather than the meaningful and thought provoking programs such as "The News Hour", Frontline, Now. PBS is a small price to pay to provide the American public an alternative to big media. Roger Jobin, Sacramento, CA
John in Iowa : PBS has my confidence in its impartiality on political issues, and a appreciate the relative depth of coverage on topics covered. I can go to other networks to hear a left or a right view, but on PBS I do and can expect fair coverage.
Emily Cook : I television viewing is limited so I am discriminating about the shows that I view. I have access to the local news channels, but I prefer the PBS news because of the indepth reporting that is not available on the network news. I feel I get a more balanced view on PBS. Please do not let the people who are on the fringes of our society determine what the masses have available on the television. I love the people who present the news on PBS, so tell them they are doing a great job and they have a loyal viewer in our family.
Jim : An excellent article! I couldn’t agree more. This article defines all my reasons for watching PBS and listening to NPR. However, I do believe a case could be made for changing the News Hour format. Something more upscale like the ‘shock and awe’ format used on the Jerry Springer Show could rejuvenate the News Hour ratings. Picture David Brooks with tattoos and tee shirt having less than civil discourse with Mark Shield sporting a tank top and beer gut. It’s is pledge week here. I’m writing my pledge check now.
sally lowen : PBS is the only television programmings that is thought provoking and devoid of "entertainment news" and awful commercials. PBS programming is focused on what is happening in the world offering in-depth commentary and avoiding sensationalism. With the 24 hour news cycle the other networks as well as the cables have become "entertainment" rather than true news. I do not believe that Brittany Spears or Anna Nicole Smith are serious news. Just one example! Not when we have genocide in Darfur, political unrest in the Middle East, growing environmental issues etc. etc. Thank you for what you do. I have completely abandoned other news shows. PBS in not irrelevant!!!!!
Rose : The question is: Is PBS and its News Hour relevent?
Too many of the guest pundits, news analysts or similar titled persons are WAY OUT OF TOUCH with our views and our daily life challenges. What they do speculate about, is conjecture that is way off the horizon of most working citizens, and sadly biased to the politics that support the lifestyles and beliefs of the wealthy and priviledged at the top of so to speak, the food chain.
You need to mingle with citizens out in the working world and bring Representatives of this LARGE group of citizens onto all shows to draw from broader experiences and views.
On the other hand, if possible irrelevency might mean an end to PBS, that would be practically a death sentence to media that at even the present level, does protect our right to know what those who don't have our wellbeing as their purpose are doing.
We do need PBS in our lives and on our airwaves, but please adapt to speaking to the needs of a broader range of human experiences by preserving it as a tool that works for ALL.
Bob : I echo Frank's comment on the 19th. PBS is indeed the oasis in the desert of TV garbage! It is a vital voice to counter the dumbing cown of America!
Terry : It's becoming more evident every day that the reason we have cable television here is to receive a good picture from PBS stations, one north and the other south. I trolled the other 300+ channels at about 8:30 the other night and in my opinion the two PBS stations we get were the only ones with any substance. My check's in the mail.
Peggy : I wouldn't need a tv if I no longer had PBS. I appreciate the in-depth reporting on the News Hour and rarely miss NOW, Bill Moyers, and Religion in the News.
Diane Culhane : I treasure PBS, especially the News Hour and Washington Week, not just for the informative content but for the civilized tone of discussions as well. Whenever I meet people who think political discussions are simply exchanges of accusations, I urge them to watch PBS news programs and learn what political discourse can and should be.
Judith Goldsmith : Eighty percent of my TV viewing is on PBS. I watch The News Hour every night and find it far more informative than commercial TV news. I echo my fellow viewers' sentiments about PBS in general....it would be a terrible loss of intelligent programing if we were to lose PBS.
David : I am a big fan of PBS; The News Hour is not only the best news show on tv or radio, it is the best show across all categories. It is entirely fair, however, to ask if taxpayers should be supporting PBS. We cannot too soon come to the tranformation in our media when all channels will reach our tv sets through broadband connections. At that point, commercial advertisers will subsidize those channels that have the right demographics, viewers will have to pay, with subscriptions or otherwise, for those channels like PBS that inform rather than promote, and none of us will then be repeatedly whiplashed by the political biases that come into play over this question.
John Larkin : The Newshour is by far the best source of in-depth news coverage on television. It is one of the top reasons that I financially support my local PBS station. Keep up the good work reporting and analyzing the important events happening in our nation and around the world.
Joe Ghiloni : Ninety percent of what I watch on TV is on PBS. If I couldn't watch Nova, American Experience, Frontline, American Masters and the Newshour, I would cancel my Cable TV subscription. Aside from sports, commercial TV has gone from bad to worse - "80 channels, but nothin's on." If PBS is losing audience share to commercial TV, that only shows how successful the media has been in 'dumbing down' the American people. That should be seen as a wake-up call. not a reason the starve PBS even more. And yes, I contribute to both PBS stations in my area every year.
John : I'm befuddled by the writers arguments: is he searching for shows with ratings or content. He doesn't seem to understand that PBS isn't for everyone; it wasn't designed that way. It's for an audience that wants a little more depth (no judgement attached here) to their news, etc. If you want a quick synopsis of the days events and many people do, the networks are fine. But don't punish a network for bringing more to the table than what is normally delivered.
Dorette Burnham : My husband and I cast two votes in favor of the Jim Leher News. It is the most balanced coverage on TV. It presents both sides of an issue. There is poetry and science that is found nowhere else. We don't need hysterical, opinionated reporting. We want to make up our own minds. We are there every night at 7:00 PM. I am disappointed when Jim isn't there to greet us. Please do not take this show off the air!!!! Friday nights are special because of Washington Week, Shields and Brooks, Bill Moyers, and NOW. This is the best, most informative show on TV! KEEP IT GOING!
BAMARKS : It is obvious from this forum that public television has its proponents. I SINCERELY HOPE your local PBS station can COUNT ON YOUR CONTRBUTIONS! If this were the case i doubt we would be having this discussion!
Karl H. & Erika : We can't imagine TV watching and/or Radio Listening without PBS. The Newscast with Jim Lehrer gives us a detailed view of the News Worldwide, necessary in supplementing the Network News. We find their presentation to be in depth and balanced, allowing us to form an opinion together with our reading material (Newsweek, Times). And shows like Nova, Frontline, Nature, Now, Bill Moyers etc. are often the only reason for this family to turn on the TV.
We are constantly surprised at the limited approach of the American Government and Public in determining the need for information on a world wide basis.
Do not deprive us of this oasis !
Clare : Cheers to what Frank posted below! I am in my 20s and feel exactly the same way. Especially about The News Hour to which I have a particular affinity. Thank you, Jim Lehrer and team - keep up the good work!
Mark W : People who argue that, due to the Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc., PBS is no longer necessary, need to be reminded where these channels get their programming. Most of their programming is purchased from the BBC and other "public" broadcasters throughout the world. PBS programming, in turn, is purchased by commercial broadcasters abroad. If it wasn't for public television, the Discovery Channel wouldn't exist.
JimW : PBS and Newshour, in particular, continue, after all these years, to represent in-depth, balanced, and objective presentations of the news. It should be supported and funded as a national treasure should.
Jeff R : The Newshour, NOW, Frontline, Charley Rose and the numerous news specials PBS provides the public offers details, clarity and perspectives unavailable from the “talking heads” and news-bites provided on commercial broadcast networks. Over the past 30 years, PBS TV & Radio news & talk shows have become my preferred view of what is happening in the world. I can trust PBS. This is VERY important to me and my family.
Karin : The NewsHour is simply the best news program on the air. It provides in-depth & balanced coverage of issues as well as the highlights of the day's news. Compare their coverage of the current political season with the meaningless frenzy & blather on other stations. No contest. As for the rest of PBS' programs, what about Frontline & Nova - you won't see that on any other station. Children's programming like Sesame Street get kids off to a good educational start. PBS also has the courage to show programs other stations would be too afraid to air - Jonathan Miller's excellent History of Disbelief comes to mind. Programs like these help to expand intellectual horizons, something Americans badly need. It's frequently said that with so many cable stations, why isn't there something worth watching? Well there is, & it's on PBS.
Chuck David : PBS is very relevant for me-The News Hour is my favorite nightly source of current events. PBS is what it is-a broadcast media aimed at educating and informing the public with unbiased programming. It can't be everything to everyone, but that is what keeps it special. Tune-in PBS for that special program you do not get from the same old commercial networks.
Rochelle Cohen : PBS offers the best of the best when it comes to news or entertainment. The Lehrer News Hour and NPR are my sources of trustworthy news without commercial interruption. Other stations, especially CNN waste time repeating themselves until the next commercial break. I find it intolerable. LONG LIVE PBS!
Sally Crumbaugh : The News Hour is the only news show that doesn't feed us our news through "sound bites" and offers in depth discussions which truly present both sides of the issues. Mark Shields and David Brooks are often the highlight of our week, and David Brooks has finally convinced me that not all Republicans are wingnuts. I also find it extremely relevant and important that the News Hour puts a face on the heroic young men and woman who are dying to fight a tragic, boondoggle of a war.
Rachel Smith : In my house we watch little else other than PBS, starting each evening with The NewsHour. Fridays are exclusively PBS with their lineup of news worthy shows. We appreciate the attention to each story with longer, indepth segments than ever available on any other channel. I would encourage PBS and NPR to share resources as they cover most of the same topics . I think we are all better off with PBS and NPR in our lives. More people should be exposed to them.
Brian : I am one of those who also think that PBS (and especially NPR) offer views far too liberal for my taste (who cares what Dan Schorr thinks?), but the intrinsic value of public broadcasting cannot be ignored. Ken Burns says it best: "...it makes our country worth defending."
caroline robbins : The article in the New YOrk Times is not helpful. What commentators (and politicians) fail to realise (or don't care) when they suggest there are other channels containing public-television-type programming, they are nearly all commercial. Apart from the lack of advertising, the programming on PBS is mostly INTELLIGENT -- something that is sorely lacking elsewhere. It is vital that PBS continues its lifeline to all of us who enjoy watching television but cannot stand the level of inanity to which so much of it has sunk.
The NewsHour is the only news program worth watching. I wish it had even more news.
Judy Frazer : PBS should receive more funding from the government not less as it has always been high road quality television and not low road network or the trash that is on most cable or satelite broadcasting.
To get my news I watch Newshour and BBC Worldnews. The network newshows are so bad because it is hip and not fair reporting. I can understand Bush not wanting PBS as he is so against the truth and has destroyed our democracy which is dependent on the media to report the truth. To lose PBS would be to take America down another notch and this country has already sunk pretty low in values, respect, dignity, and truth.
Cable and satellite TV is the stuff that needs to go. I refuse to pay money for garbage which most of it is with few exceptions and news reporting trash that is on MSNBC. We need good educational and entertainment TV not violence, sex, hipe.
cynthia ervin : I can not imagin a life without PBS. This station provides the majority of the programs we watch. I find it surprising that an organization like the NYT would question the need for a station that provides such quality programs to its viewers/listeners.
Ed Noyes, San Diego : As a subscriber to a basic cable service, I have access to only a limited number of channels. Fortunately, my local cable company includes PBS in the package. PBS is my clear choice for entertainment, and I rely on the News Hour for outstanding, objective, and penetrating news reporting. Overall, PBS provides an invaluable public service and merits generous support by our federal government.
Ann in Greenwich, CT : PBS has been and continues to be my only choice for TV (I don't have cable). For example, "The News Hour" is the source for what's going on in the world and is the best unbiased reporting on TV. And "BBC News" insures a solid "external" (not just US)perspective. Further, "Bill Moyers Journal" and "Now" are two programs that further "peel the onion" on current events. Can PBS do a better job? Absolutely, all orgnizations have room for improvement. Hopefully, what will come from the NYT article is: increased support from our government, critical and continual review of PBS progamming (some offerings are past their prime), and proactive communication by PBS loyalists to our elected officials reflecting our commitment to this much-appreciated and much-needed institution. PBS -- keep up the brilliant work!
Jerry Cassidy : Without PBS our choices are very limited: Inane, unbelieveable comedy shows, virtual realty for mass morons (Mencken was on the money) group feel-good sessions that entertain the staff without providing substance called Local or National News. No more ITN. The list goes is almost infinte, Give us PBS.
diane : In these days of big media conglomerates, all of which have their own agenda's, its more important than ever that public radio and television be not only maintained, but strengthened!
The only balanced and fair news coverage available to a thinking individual is PBS and CBC.
For those of us with an attention span longer than thirty seconds, the public media is crucially important in our daily lives.
Frontline, Nova, the News Hour,and Bill Moyer ( bless him! )along with our own Peter Mansbridge and the very fine documentaries produced by CBC are enlightening and thought provoking.
Without them, television is truly a wasteland!!
Jeanne M. Storm : I love PBS and the Lehrer News Hour- for comic relief I also watch The Daily Show and Colbert Report. Anyone who watches these shows knows how stupid the news coverage on CNN as well as Fox News can be. What is wrong with Jane Austen? Many of the British comedies are great fun- I love "Last of the Summer Wine" among others. Frontline often reveals shocking information not heard elsewhere! When I have surfed the other stations I often find nothing but trash. I read the NY Times daily, but certainly find them off base this time.
George : WE by choice in our household, do not have cable or a satellite dish. We have 2 PBS stations and frankly over 75% of what we watch is on PBS! PBS is unbiased in it's viewpoints and news and this is refreshing because with all the other so called 'news' you have to take with a grain of salt (and maybe a shot of tequilla too!)
Cynthia : As previously noted in some the other comments, I wouldn't even be aware of this NYT article if I hadn't been watching the "Newshour" last night, but then we watch the "Newshour" every evening. It is the only general news program we do watch. Frankly it's the only one we trust because it is consistently unbiased, presents both sides, is thought provoking, balanced in its reporting, and doesn't assume its viewers are dumber than a box of rocks. Go "Newshour" and PBS, we will continue to donate dollars.
Jay : I live in a small rural community where our local newspaper covers little of national and world events. I depend on the Newshour to keep me informed about
whats going on in the world. It seems to be the only format where knowledgeable guests discuss both sides of any given issue. I would have to spend a great deal of money on magazines and newspapers to get the same information I get from the Newshour, and I don't have that kind of income. The Newshour helps keep all classes of people informed. Keep up the good work!
Molly : PBS is the Best. Jim Lehrer's Newhour (even without McNeil) is the best news program - truthful, informative and wide ranging in it's topics. I can listen to the information without questioning its content and motivations. Can't say that about the Times.
This Country needs PBS and NPR. The powers that be have taken away so much else - so PBS and NPR are a must keep.
Marie Aziz : I want to express my feeling of outrage at New York Times' article. The only network worth watching is the PBS. The other networks are showing stupid shows, which are and insults to the audiences' intelligence. I think Times is jaleous of PBS and WETA. In the evening I would rather watch the News Hour with Jim Lehrer than to read New York Times' biased news and editorials. My dauther grew up watching Mr. Rogers and Saseame Street. I enjoy the Great Perfomances on WETA because unlike New York Times' rich executives I cannot pay to watch these performances on location. Iwould have undestood if these comments came from Washington Times Not New York Times although NY Times have been hiring many conservative editors to make the conservative right and Neocons happy. I am totally outraged and angry!
Ruth & Lou : We are a retired couple, former educators who find nothing on TV outside of PBS worth watching. Our viewing consists of the News Hour, Washington Week, Bill Moyer's Journal and NOW, supplemented by NOVA, Frontline and Masterpiece. The network news programs are dominated by entertainment without truth, balance or essence. Whereas on PBS we can find daily reports of substantive issues dealt with from all sides of their arguments. PBS deals with issues and needs of our American culture that receive no attention from the profit media. PBS speaks honestly of each issue or subject it addresses always seeking balance of opinion from all sides. There is no doubt that PBS budget does not allow it to buy up expensive programming it once would have offered. The for profit networks have out-priced them. The answer to that problem is to increase the budget of PBS significantly. We think the basic strength of PBS is reiterated with every repetition of its letters. This is Public Broadcasting, supported by the people, for the people and of the people. It needs more government money and we will continue to send our financial support for television, not to a cable company but to PBS.
rosemary t smith : First, I attempted to place a comment directly at the NYT site but was unsuccessful. I hope you can forward this comment to the NYT.
I was astonished and upset to see the article. I find the News Hour with Jim Lehrer to be an oasis in the desert of television news. It offers in depth coverage and analysis, a variety of perspectives on issues, and stories on many interesting topics I would be unaware of if I relied on other news programs.
Discussion moderators and interviewers have excellent knowledge of their topics/interviewees. The ask incisive questions without being biased or argumentative.
The author notes that PBS is hindered in producing quality, innovative programming by unpredictable government funding. At the same time he uses this as reason to elimiate such funding. These points seem contradictory to me. Arbitrary political pressures have created an need to be wary about "political correctness" at PBS. For example, Bill Moyers has been targeted for providing a forum for discussions certain politicians characterized as biased. To me it appears the problem was his programs didn't reflect their biases.
I think this article is an unprovoked, self contradictory attack on PBS (and my treasured News Hour). I hope other readers will subject the article to the type of in-depth analysis the News Hour provides.
Richard Burns : If I could watch news in order of the best to the worst News Hour on PBS is by far the best and most informative. I would like to say as a life long republican that FOX is hands down the worst. I love a great deal about PBS and would like more government support as I think PBS is very much needed.
Peter Davis : I watch the News Hour as often as I can for in depth review of important issues. The typical network news show has so much unimportant trivia in an effort to hypnotize viewers that they are the ones who are irrelevant.
Pete : I don’t understand the impetus for a New York Times article questioning the relevancy of PBS. Those of us who watch PBS television and listen to NPR are convinced of the relevancy of intelligent, in-depth news and entertainment. Without public television and radio, my quality of life would be severely compromised. American Experience and American Masters are two of the best shows on television. The Jim Lehrer News Hour gives me thoughtful discussion and analysis of current events, as opposed to the slick sound bites that comprise mainstream news (and the atrocious propaganda on FOX and AM radio). I’m guessing the Times article was subsidized by either Exxon or Rupert Murdoch, both of whom have a vested interest in keeping America dumb.
Sherri : Your news hour is the most comprehensive and the best in my opinion. It is the only one I watch. Keep up the good work. It is also the only newscast that shows the faces, names and hometowns of our fallen soldiers at the end of the program. The other newcasts are not brave enough to do so.
Mike Everston : PBS is light years above the other networks. I would question the sanity of the New York Times.
Please, PBS, THE NEWS HOUR, don't leave us.
Handsonmytime : "Not relevant"? This is absurd. Now more than ever with the increasing buy up of the media by large corporations and the onslaught of governmental control of the media, PBS and Newshour in particular offers the last refuge for insightful and intelligent commentary on politics and society. I look forward each night (for the past many years) to Newshour and especially the Friday editions to summarize the weeks events. PBS news is my only TV source for news!! I don't even bother with the network coverages.
cynthia chace macniel : The News Hour is an essential part of my life. I watch 4-5 tiems a week and appreciate the depth of your coverage of issues. I appreciate the attention given to the men and women killed in Iraq. I like the editorial comments of the two men, not remembering names at this moment, on Fri night. Also like your election coverage and the dialogue you led in Williamsburg, Virginia. That was very exciting. Do it again.
I need you. Do not go away.
Venna Murray : The importance of Public Television in general and the news which is presented there in particular is an extrememly valuable addition to my life. I am visually impaired and reading is an arduous task for me. To be dependent upon the vapid entertainment or biased Orwellian doublespeak that passes for news on commercial television is unthinkable. Then there are the constant interruptions by offensive or insulting ads that add to the untrustworthy mess which passes for information about current events. Without PBS to enrich my life and keep me truly informed I would be less valuable to my country, my community, and myself.
Winifred Flisram : I haven't read the Times article, but I wanted to tell you that I find network news a) too shallow, b) too much advertising, c) too much fluff, such as news about gossip about the rich and famous, and d) unwilling to cover world events unless the US is involved. I would very much miss PBS for this and other reasons if it were to be eliminated, as I watch it 80% of my television viewing.
Chris a WI native now in Ohio : Is PBS relative? Now more than ever. It lends variety against cable and tv conglomerates where homogenized news is the daily menu. One cannot even depend on the voice of the FCC as a voice of the people, even though we pay their way.
I miss public radio in Wisconsin, a quality of radio not found in Ohio. I hope that changes but until then, I need public television and the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Detailed facts are necessary to public discourse.
It would be a good idea if journalists like those at the New York Times or on MSNBC tuned in to the best of news broadcasting once in a while. Political and news shows like The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Washington Week, Now and Bill Moyers are fact based and not driven by sound bites and commercials.
Take a listen Chris Matthews and Tim Russert; learn from the masters!
Kathy & Ed : As Americans living abroad, we record the NewsHour every night (it airs at 03:00 local time) and watch it the next morning over coffee. What a marvelous lifeline to intelligent, thorough discussions of major issues! In contrast, we could watch CNN 24/7 but don’t bother. PBS-hosted presidential debates, which have been of the highest standard, are alone worth government support. Leave this people’s network alone!
Ed coker : The Newshour and PBS in general is the last bastion of hope for TV. Consistently good programing and excellent in-depth, truthful coverage of the news. Our news organizations play an important role in shaping our opinions and the future of our Country. The Newshour is one of a declining few news programs that upholds its obligations and responsibilities to the American people. Keep up the good work, our Country depends on the truth.
jim : The News Hour is the most honest information source on TV today. It is very noticeable that the members of the present Bush Administration avoid penetrating interviews of Jim Leherer and his staff in preference for the private networks and cable which allow them to jointly control question content. PBS is an essential component of an American System that claims to be an open Democracy.
Linda : There is no other program on television that reports the news with such calm, hype-free delivery. When we want to hear both sides, and we want the hard questions asked in a respectful manner, which is always, the Lehrer report is where we turn. America would be lost without it.
Katherine Dolan : As a New York Times print and online subscriber I am appalled by the New York Times story on PBS TV and, specifically , by its uncalled for assault on The NewsHour. I am 49 years old . My husband is 48 . My children are 10 . Together , every week night, we watch The NewsHour together as a family and learn about the world in an intelligent , relevant fashion . Because the program is free of sensational celebrity based content that inappropriately fills the network and cable news channels, as a mother, I do not fear that my kids will be assaulted by news of a pregnant celebrity teenager or a shoplifting actress etc. Because The NewsHour does not play and replay the days most horrific video (as CNN & other news programs do) I do not fear that my kids will be assaulted by images that would elicit fear but NO knowledge of the world's events. Because The NewsHour reporting is always balanced and inclusive of all the critical world events of the day , the hour is filled with stories that other broadcast and cable news programs never bother to report .
And perhaps , most ironic regarding The New York Times bizarre attack on The News Hour, The Newshour is to the broadcast news landscape what The New York Times is to The New York Post here in Manhattan . I was deeply disappointed to read a paper I respect attack The News Hour when the New York Times should , rather , join the News Hour as a colleague in presenting quality news .
Even now, days after reading the story , I am puzzled as to why this inappropriate attack was necessary?
Katherine
Bob : On the other hand, what is so relevant about what is generally available on the commercial networks -
infomercials,programs riddled with commercial interruptions, mindless drivel.
PBS is an oasis of reason and beauty,a very conservative network that seeks to conserve the ideal of bringing the world into your living room, a green oasis in the midst of a "vast wasteland".
Earle & Daničle : The idea of cancelling the extremely informative, in depth and impartial news coverage both national and international, as presented year after year, on the Newshour is absolutely unthinkable and it is not musty as reported by the article. Unbiased news are very necessary in this day and age plus it is very refreshing to view other intellectually stimulating programs. We are hoping that public television will survive for many years to come as well as the NewsHour.
Ann in Boston : Newshour is by far and away the best news show on television. I can watch the news for an hour a night and feel as if I know what is going on in the world--with thankfully no mention of Brittney Spears. The selection of stories is always interesting, and the point of view thankfully neutral. Jim Leher might be 73, but commands far more respect and gravitas than an Anderson Cooper or a Katie Couric.
Also thanks for the honor roll...disturbing as it is to see the ages of the soldiers, it serves as an important reminder that these are real people dying over there.
Christian Murphy : I’ve watched Public Television all of my adult life and have gained immensely from the quality programming. But it’s Public Television’s news and commentary that have made the most significant impact on my life. The reporting, interviewing and analysis we viewers get from PBS is incomparable to the commercial networks. Without PBS, there would be a terrible void created and it would be impossible to gain unbiased, vital information.
It is the nature of commercial television to be exclusionary. Their news cannot offend or in anyway conflict with current or potential sponsors, thus they are restricted in their ability to present objective data. Commercial television is just that; it’s a commercial venture, supported by commerce, with a natural bias to promote business interests. In fact, it reflects the nature of our government, which seems to do the same, to support and promote commerce and let democracy and free speech take a second place.
It would be a very sad time for many viewers like myself if there was no longer a public broadcasting system. I simply could not imagine that we could be denied this one source of truly intelligent and objective news.
Fran : As said in so many comments, I would be lost without the news hour on PBS. It is the only news program I watch, and I think it is the only news program worth watching! I also read the New York Times, and I cannot understand what in the world prompted the article questioning the importance of PBS.
Hans Hillebrand : I am surprised at the NY Times, of all peaple; but may we should be thanking the writer, as we are now again reminded how precious PBS and its superb programming is and that there are always some Tomato heads out there how had their brains fried long ago by network programs, the cant think anymore. There is no alternative: Support PBS!
Quinn-Bell : To the NY Times: We have but two words to say:
Shield and Brooks. To suggest that PBS and programs such as the News Hour need to be kicked to the curb is the equivalent of the Washington Post requesting the same treatment for the NY Times. Newspapers are little more than fish-wrappers these days and it's no wonder that huge OLD time daily publishers continue to spiral down toward irrelevant oblivion. As long as faithful supporters breath and write checks, rest assure, PBS will not be making that journey.
Sam in Birmingham : It's by choice that I make annual contributions to Alabama Public Television. The News Hour is one of the outstanding programs linked to my willingness to pay for public television. Last night's broadcasts of "Frontline: Rules of Engagement" and "NOVA: Ape Genius" are other examples of excellence in television which I find on PBS.
Pat : I find The News Hour serious, not musty! I appreciate not having to filter out all the "flashing and scrolling" that clutters other news shows. Perhaps PBS spends its money on journalism, not glitz. And surely we have gotten beyond this age issue. I don't need Babes and Hunks delivering my news. I do need wisdom, civility, clarity and wit! Many nights I watch both network and PBS news and am always struck by the difference in information presented by Jim Lehrer and the other regulars in contrast to the networks.
As to the cable issue: I don't have it and don't want it. I'll send my viewing dollars directly to my local PBS station, which is what I would be watching if I had cable! As a classroom teacher I see the value for my rural students who routinely report watching with their parents and grandparents. We link to the PBS web site constantly during class. I don't know how a nation could provide more educational value for such a modest investment.
Now that I think about it, perhaps that cute little column in the New York Times was irrelevant.
Mike : I am 56 years old and grew up with tv. When I last moved, I could not receive ANY tv signals, including PBS, so I got basic cable. If PBS goes off the air -then I'll carry my tv to the curb for pickup. In my opinion the FCC should be abolished or replaced for not controlling the sludge that is broadcast OVER THE AIRWAVES - Who needs the PBS? Ted Turner would probably buy it. But I would rather like to see Ted Turner buy all of Hollywood, and then we could be done with it and give it back to the Mexicans.
kent hughes : pbs is the only daily newscast that delivers focused insight to the news of the day. The rest are cookiecutter me too newscasts that differeniate themselves by political bias, rather than content. the rise of the internet and the demise of tv news is no accident, people want content and coment, and you simly don't get that with the rubberstamp network newscasts. pbs's news hour is the exception that gives us both content and coment and strives to remain unbiased.
David in Toledo : Newspapers are cutting back investigative staff or going out of business. Media outlets become more monopolistic in their ownership, and lack any requirement for public service or truly fair and balanced coverage.
PBS is more important than ever! It's the one tax-based service (and only partially tax-based) I feel good about supporting!
Lynn : I watch and TiVo numerous PBS programs, Charlie Rose, Frontline, American Experience but none more important than the Newshour. Given the increasing bias and assumed short attention span of viewers on both cable and broadcast stations, the Newshour is increasingly relevant. There is something to be said for getting the in depth story rather than just whatever fits in 60 second bites. The writer appears to be in a constant search for new stimuli and also seems to be laboring under an age bias. A TV show survives for a number of years because it is good.
I also listen to NPR and not only in the car.
Marilynn Anderson : PBS is NECESSARY!. I count on Lehre and "Nightly News" to bring me indepth coverage, also NOW and Bill Moyers. I appreciate Religion & Ethics, Masterpiece Theatre (Jane Austin). #13 and 21 are almost the only tv program that we watch and we do contribute financially as we are able.
German Alvarado : Jim as the 4th Estate (the press) has been failing miserably in its role since the mid to late 1980's I find PBS to be quite to the contrary. It is very much needed. I know it is an annoyance to many but hwo cares . . .
Priscilla : PBS is my nightly news program. I only watch network news for weather then immediately change to Channel 2 out of Boston. At PBS get information and intelligent comment. On network news I get car and drug adds.
crowtalk : For elders, for youngsters, for adults, for families, for teens, PBS represents an option that is inexpensive as opposed to cable costs, and provides something a bit more nourishing that the one minute capsules of news? that I find on other spots on my TV dial. Sure, it has had to resort to reruns and cable companies have attracted the funds to launch idiotic fantasies about topics that some of us find mind-numbing; however, as someone who doesn't watch TV every minute of every day - here in Maine we are too busy trying to keep our environments safe, our children safe and literate, and our elders secure in their last years, to park ourselves in front of the tube. However, our PBS station will start broadcasting the state's basketball tourneys tonight and we'll be there rooting for our wonderful schools and teams. PBS is remarkable even today; the News Hour leads me to think about situations, not just accept what the corporate world wants me to swallow. Hooray for Bill Moyers, Gwen Ifill, Jim Lehrer, Washington Week, NOVA, Wired Science, Nature, and the whole bunch that I turn to when I have the time and want to catch up with the world. As we know, there aren't many places that the President can cut the budget, but I'm sure PBS was an easy target. We need to find a better solution to that problem.
P. Marx : As far as I'm concerned the only accurate and in depth news we get is on PBS: News Hour, Moyers, Front Line. As for the New York Times, I believe it was one of their reporters who championed the misinformation that led us into the horrible war we are now involved in. Perhaps they are unnessary.
Chris :
PBS offers far superior programs. I watch Jim Leher's news program every night it is on. And Friday PMs on PBS offer the best political news anywhere.
Masterpiece theatre is also without peer. Prime Suspect was way ahead of the curve.
Childrens shows are superior to other networks fare.
I can't image getting the content -and what a Value- anywhere else on TV
WHY BE A LEMMING AND PAY BIG FEES FOR EXTRA CABLE programs. I'm not a sucker; I recognize the quality, value and superiority of PBS.
I can't image who or what this columnist prefers personally as TV fare. Does he cite that anywhere?
lori : I have been watching PBS since i was a kid, and frankly i believe this is the only network worth letting my kids see to this day... They educate the kids and are by far the most clever network out there. NPR is the only station i will listen to in my car.. These programs are a must!!!!
tom meyer : I am not sure which would be worse, being subjected to an hour of FOX News when commentators are talking over one another or waterboarding torture! We bought TIVO to enable us to watch The News Hour at any hour. It is like attending a college level class on important current events once a day. Living in a rural area, NPR and PBS provide us with a connection to the larger world!
Bob Olsen : It would be a pity to eliminate the most honorable news presentations available on television to the American public. The subordination to the commercial interests demonstrated on so much of our viewing is reprehensible.
Jack Erle : There are forces in the executive branch as well as in cogress who would rather not have us see or hear the news that PBS & NPR give us. These forces are most prevalent in Republican politics but not limited to it.
That's why we must let our cogress know how much CPB means to us.
William : PBS is still great.I'm not in assisted living. Oh yes it might not be as hip as other cable stations,but quality TV it does give me.
Here in Houston my local ABC or NBC station is showing me a police chase in Kansas City.
I've encourged people to watch PBS and they've thanked me.
Keep going PBS!
Mary Rose : Jim, I have watched your program since the beginning and regard it highly. There is almost nothing left on our PBS channels here that is scheduled conveniently for me or that I care about, except Bill Moyers Journal, Now, Washington Week and Rick Steves' travel program. I dislike those old British comedies, which take up much of Saturday evening viewing and I spend much of the weekend viewing C-Span 1 and 2. Everyone on your program is excellent and I look forward to seeing and listening to them 5 evenings a week.
Jean : Every week night my husband and I watch the NBC news then the News Hour on PBS. The News Hour explains what is merely mentioned in the network news. No where else is such balanced coverage availble. I also have a question. What is wrong with Lehrer being in his 70's? Perhaps his age gives him perspective , knowledge, and experience a younger person might not.
Iris Molotsky : While I find listen to npr and appreciate their excellent programming, I don't accept the argument that this therefore makes pbs unnecessary. Despite its venerable age, Jim Lehrer's newshour is invaluable in its thoughtful analysis of the news and both Bill Moyers and David Brancaccio provide in- depth coverage of topics not addressed by others. Surely we don't face an either/or decision--both are valuable sources of information and we need both.
Iris Molotsky
StephX2 : The fact that there are so many in-your-face op-ed talk shows pretending to be news shows attest to the need for the kind of in-depth, unbiased news shows like I watch on PBS. Unfortunately the american public does not have the intelligence to distinquish between news and opinion so, as much as I favor free-market television I support federal funding for PBS.
King Schoenfeld : It seems obvious to me that anyone who is a regular viewer of PBS (and listener to NPR) sees the vast difference between commercial TV network and cable fare and the public broadcasting offerings. Certainly NPR and PBS news can be faulted for repetious rehashing of headline news, but their in depth exploration of issues--at length--offsets this, for those who want to spend the time. There is, to me, no question of wasting public dollars or of duplication of effort between public broadcasting and commercial broadcasting inview of the superior product. And for those of us who value world news, particularly as formulated by foreign press and available on satellite, PBS and NPR do a better job (but could do more) delivering these than the networks.
Wm Frye : Without PBS, I wouln't bother to own a television. That might not be such a bad thing. Public Television has it's problems but it way ahead of anything else on the air in the United States.
Dr. James Breech, Ph.D., M.B.A., B.A. (Hon) : For as long as I can remember, Jim Lehrer's program (formally MacNeil/Lehrer) has been the only television news worth spending time to watch. The only exceptions have been during the first Gulf War in 1990 and when the invasion of Iraq was taking place in 2003. There are other times when real time coverage is important. But I can go for years without watching any other TV news than PBS. The reason is simple. Only on PBS do you get informed analysis and discussion of the issues from both the "right" and the "left" or at least from various viewpoints.
Susan : The Newshour is the best and most balanced news show on the air. They present both sides of every issue and stick to news. Also this is the only place that I am aware of on TV that acknowledges our fallen soldiers. It is a serious show covering serious topics and I would be lost without it.
Gary Minich : With a few exceptions, if the television is on in our home, it is tuned to PBS. Commercial television must be a major villain in the dumbing down of America. When college graduates think Pearl Harbor had something to do with Vietnam or can't find Pakistan on a world map, it is a sign that our education system and our culture is in big trouble.
Public television and NPR are the only broadcasters that can be relied on to provide timely in-depth coverage of the world.
John Black : I live in Adelaide, Australia, and Jim Lehrer's News Hour is probably the only truly independent overseas news bulletins available to Australians. It regularly has information and views from a variety of experts, left and right, that are simply not available to Australians otherwise. I am particularly interested in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the News Hour level of involvement and access to experts is not available in Australia otherwise.
Ellen Zapf : The day I read that Bush's budget was asking for more and major cuts effecting Public TV and Radio,I again could not understand.
Now reading all the hundreds of possitive comments, acknowleging wonderful men like Jim L and his newshour - fills my heart. It is past time we all said 'bravo!" well done to PBS. My son listens to pbs radio on his way to work in San Diego, he liked it so much ...he sent me a link.
I have been a loyal viewer for years...my favorite times..Tuesday, Sunday, friday evenings..and especially the newshour. Now, reading these wonderful comments, I thank the NYTIMES writer - his words demanded the people speak out and I now smile as I listen to Jim say his famous opening words or paul, pointing his finger wishing us the 'best of good buys!"...PBS is!!!
Norman : In spite of the increased options the majority of my TV watching remains on PBS, especially the news. On PBS one actually gets the news unlike the Dobbs-like ranting and blather that now seems to be in vogue elsewhere.
Helen Davis MD : For Heavens sake! Did Rupert Murdoch take over the NYT without my knowing it? Even to suggest that we can do without PBS is unthinkable. The Internet and even CNN is no substitute unless you have infinite time and patience to sift through the garbage to find the one little gem. I agree PBS needs more money and a new board(without Tomlinson) and it will continue to be the national treasure it has always been.
Eileen : I gave up cable in 1995 and found PBS to my delight. I began watchint The Antiques Road Show and then found The News Hour. I came to look forward to it every night and found myself learning so much from the different perspectives offered, and the civility of the discussion. From there I began watching American History and NOVA. Now that I have young children, I am even more committed to PBS. It has so much edifying entertainment and educational programming. NOTHING compares to PBS.
Mary Lauranne Lifka : The Newshour is the most informative, balanced and wide-ranging program that I have been able to find on TV. The honor of dead in Iraq and Afghanistan, atention to the arts, special segments like those with Paul Salmon, corrections for occational errors and, above all, excellent use of the English language can't be found anywhere. Keep up the effort and thank you.
Marcia : I dread to think of being stuck with just Network news, which is nothing more than a Police, Fire and Celebrity report. I would truly miss Jim Lehrer, Bill Moyers, Washington Week, Now, Radio Times, Masterpiece Theatre and many other fine programs. Please fight this movement.
sue03 : The comments on this article at the Times now seem to be closed. I gather the argument is that anything on PBS that is of quality could succeed on commercial cable. I disagree. I am also concerned that only a portion of all cable subscribers even purchase access to many of the best cable networks for arts, documentaries and international news, and only a portion of those subscribers who have access take the time to check what those upper channels offer.
Even after conversion to digital television, there will be a number of viewers who protest that it is too expensive to subscribe to more than a basic package on cable (my mother, brother and sister) and thus forego stations like Sundance, IFC, Ovation, National Geographic, Discovery Times or subscription services like HBO or Showtime where the arts, investigative journalism, documentaries and quality multipart miniseries are shown.
PBS stations are local, must-carry stations for cable systems. If PBS funding were slashed and PBS was no longer showing Frontline, Independent Lens, POV, American Experience, American Masters, Ken Burns and other history miniseries, PBS NewsHour and Bill Moyers Journal, but these programs were instead forced to find homes on the many scattered cable networks referenced above, many noncable-nonsatellite (over the air viewers) and those thrifty cable subscribers who purchase only local channels (ABC, CBS, NBC, CW, Fox and PBS) and basic networks on cable would have no access to the programs that make one think! Only those who can afford more expensive programming packages on cable and satellite (perhaps college-educated persons with higher incomes) will be exposed to many of these thought-provoking programs. What a loss to the civic education of the population! I love C-SPAN, but it takes dedication to go online and check their schedule in advance to find panel discussions on topics of interest. Most viewers won't bother. It is much easier to view discussions nightly on the NewsHour. Public funding of PBS and NPR on radio is important for the same reason that public funding of public schools is important: to ensure public access to information about our government, our world, science and the arts, sufficient to become well-educated voters who will have the information necessary to make informed decisions when voting on ballot propositions and when choosing candidates at all levels of government.
I am also concerned that Washington Week in Review and the NewsHour no longer get enough funding from PBS viewers, Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foundations, and now have had to obtain corporate funding from the likes of Boeing and the National Mining Association. Will this discourage those programs from critical coverage of those industries?
Debbie G. : The News Hours provides an important public service to this country, unbaised, informative and in depth information and anyalsis. Isn't that what the public airwaves (which the public own) were created for - the public service of information to the citizens of America? I enjoy all the programs on PBS. Keep the information flowing.
Rosemarie Rauzino-Heller : Without PBS, our family would not bother to have a television at all - and most certainly not cable. The privilege of paying an exorbitant amount monthly for 80-100 channels of junk defies rational thought. Though I do think that PBS could cut much of the junkier programs now offered, i.e. "America's Ballroom Challenge", "Doo Wop" and all the 'feel-good' spinmasters, and offer more real theater, Shakespeare performances and classical music, all three of which are in short supply, I am able to see the BBC classics on Masterpiece Theatre, Bill Moyers and his penetrating analyses, Frontline, which challenges the administration and business news releases, etc. And - where else but on PBS can you find hour-long interviews with each of the presidential candidates, such as you find on "Charlie Rose" and Jim Lehrer's News Hour. They're non-judgmental, but ask probing questions in a civil tone and try to actually ferret out real policy differences. The ultimate gift is --- no commercials!
John Into : When commercial media has developed such a stranglehold on our access to current events, based purely on profits or the manipulation of political power, it is absolutely imperative that we have an alternative. As is, PBS and NPR have a very difficult row to hoe financially and politically. PBS belongs to us. Those who say it has no value tend to be those who are either afraid of its power or who wish for it to be given to them for their own gains through "privatization". PBS and NPR are among the very few remaining means that we have to receive professional objective information. Let's not lose sight of that.
Vic Gibson : Add me to the list of those who appreciate PBS programs like The News Hour, Nova and Masterpiece.
The news alone justifies PBS funding. Network news is such a joke; it is "news as entertainment." Witness the recent silly reporting on a dog show - and let's not sign-off from our nightly network news programs without some useless emotional blather over a sick child, a wounded vet or home-town-boy-makes-good. Since when is that news? And note that the half-hour network "news" is not a half-hour - it is 15 minutes when you subtract the commercial interruptions.
Finally I'd suggest one of the reasons for the endless rerun of old programs and tired sitcoms is clearly the lack of proper funding. By the way, they seem to get them from the BBC and I've heard rumors that the BBC actually has newer programming we might like. Wonder how the BBC manages funding...
m brandt : As a high school teacher I can only say that in the vast wasteland that is known as television today, PBS News is my anchor. I am grateful for its thoughtful programming every day. I try to watch Jim Lehrer's newshour on a daily basis to get a balalnced, in-depth perspective on news free of pandering and commercial interruption. The PBS Newshour is a keeper.
Mary Lou : We are just finishing up eight years of a downward spiral in almost every aspect of our lives in this country under this administration. PBS - the News Hour has been a lamp in the wilderness providing intelligent analysis using varieties of viewpoints. The News Hour is the only reason we
subscribe to cable and we do avail ourselves of other fine programs as an additional perk. PBS and NPR..the only way to go! Thank you for being there. We can't imagine life without you!
Catherine Logar : If Charles McGrath can’t see the need for Public Television, then maybe he shouldn’t be writing articles for the NYT, or is this an overly naďve observation? It is, to say the least, refreshing to be spared such debilitating atrocities as American Gladiator, The Insider, The Biggest Loser, etc, as well as sometimes sensationally one-sided news programs – yes, post-Peter Jennings ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, not to mention Fox. Please leave this moderate choice to those few (millions) of us who are still able to appreciate access to both the former and PBS’s The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and BBC World News for their content and not only for the privilege of being spared those phamaceutical persuasions between (and during) broadcasts. To some people, PBS news, Brit coms from any era (good comedy is good comedy) old movies (a good movie is a good movie), documentaries, interviews with some substance, and such are preferable to hospital and police force series jam-packed with violence and fear-mongering.
PBS should remain an option. Without it television would be one step closer to isolating North America from the rest of the world. Although we are not as powerful a minority as others one hesitates to mention, there should be a small place all the same, shouldn’t there, for Public Television in a « free society »?
Walter Debler : The article in Sunday's NY-Times depricating PBS is full of "cheap shots", like citing Jim Lehrer's age, which could well make him wiser and better. The article's author often mentions PBS poor funding as the source of the limitiations on its programing. I like the solution of feeding it rather than chopping off its head. (Yes, I find my life much duller when I must watch the programs during the fund raising weeks.)
The author of the article states that cable television gives us vastly more diverse coverage. I, for one, don't need this mass of mostly junk with its large percentage of advertisement. I enjoy a great deal of what is presented on PBS and it suffices my needs to spend some time inactively. Programs like The News Hour, Frontline, American Experience,Nature, Charley Rose -- I wish that he were to appear earlier in the evening -- and Foreign Affairs(?) give me information and insight that would be very hard to replace.
When the author decries the "mustiness" of the programs, I think of the decline of "Sixty Minutes" on CBS. It has gone over the years from a "must see" event on Sunday nights to a ho-hum program that is more similar to People magazine than one of ideas and political and social relevancy in order to gain "popularity". PBS certainly has not fallen into this trap. Stay strong. Upward and anward.
Kate : I went to the NY Times website to comment, but it requires another damn password. Just another advantage of the conversation here on PBS. I watch PBS News and other programs like Tavis Smiley because network TV news is so shallow, biased to the right, and bought out by the medical establishment and pharmaceutical companies. I really value the depth of reporting and questioning that goes on in Public TV programming, and I won't be looking on line or to a newspaper to replace it. One of the most valuable parts to me is the overview, or background that shows context to a news story, which really helps me understand what is going on in the news. I agree with the NY Times article's conclusion that the solution to a stale old show is not less money for PBS, but more! The public really needs information that is not controlled by corporate interests and right-of-center opinion-mongers sometimes masquerading as reporters.
ASPEN ONE : Up until the 80's I believed in the reverence of the TIMES. While on the inside of the longest health care workers strike in history (1982) I learned first hand that your slogan is a not quite right -- It should be ALL THE NEWS THAT FITS, WE PRINT.
PBS needs to be there to keep psuedo intelects like you all in check
Jack Erle : I think many of you should try to find Democracy Now which is the Best news show on Television. They ask hard questions and are objective, fair and balanced. They are absolutely the most extensive in their news coverage of world news today. Amy Goodman surpasses everyone with her clairity and sense of news.
Karenlg : I disagree with the Times article. PBS is still the best network by far. If I had to choose one network, it would definitely be PBS for intelligent and interesting programming. The News Hour is the only decent news hour on TV. It's the only one that provides any depth to the day's news stories. Jim Lehrer may be in his 70s, but he is still the best newscaster on TV. By the way, I still miss Bob Edwards on Morning Edition.
Kent Harbison : PBS is about the only television programming worth watching. I particularly like the in-depth and objective reports on News Hour and Frontline. I don't even watch any local news or much commercial news programs and certainly DO NOt watch the other cable programs with self-appointed and phony experts (??) yelling at each other (including even ESPN). PBS is a huge exception to the historic vast wasteland of most television programming. Having said that, I am rarely interested in or entertained by many of the drama programs on PBS.
Patricia & Flemming Harnisch : We think PBS, with its News, Current and Foreign Affairs, and Arts Programmes, which we have watched for years, deserves all the financial support it needs. (Though we live in Canada, we are financial supporters and members of WGBH Boston). ( Just wish you could broadcast Live from Lincoln Centre broadcasts more frequently). Best wishes to all your staff, volunteerts and other supporters.
Mary Lou Dwan : PBS is without a doubt (to my way of thinking) the best channet on TV. I have Charter Cable TV and if PBS and C-span were not available on that service, I would cancel the service. DO NOT mess with PBS. I especially enjoy the Lehrer news and business report every evening. I trust that I will get the facts and when I get an opinion, I know it is an opinion and I can judge for myself. Also, I really like the nature shows (such as Genius of Apes) and all the musical shows - both current entertainers and those from an earlier time. Go PBS!!!
Liz Hall : Dear News Hour,
I watch local and network news 6 days a week. But 20 minutes of evening news on ABC or CBS and Sunday news talk shows doesn't totally satisfy my need to know what is going on in the world. Margaret's recent reporting from Asia was simply outstanding. Your News Hour boardcast provides in-depth reporting and discussion that people really benefit from. So much of the news on broadcast networks is involved with Celebrities of Hollywood. I couldn't care less about them except perhaps Brad Pitt's or George Cooney's humanitarian efforts. The News Hour is great for keeping current on geography. I really appreciate your interviews with people of opposing viewpoints. In order to understand the world we need to listen to the News Hour on PBS. Not everyone can afford Cable, so it is nice to have PBS news and history programs. I enjoy Nature, but disagree with its evolutionary slant. Its evening programs are generally much better and informative than the sickening crime shows and evening soap operas. What we put into our minds will eventually come out. We need to continue informative programming, not entertainment that doesn't make one reflect upon the great themes of life. Of course, good programs can be both informative and entertaining. PBS News is for the serious mind. As far as the New York Times goes, let them offer news free without advertisement. Until then, they shouldn't cast a stone. Liz
Jane : The Jim Lehrer News Hour, Frontline, Charlie Rose are thre of the many sources on PBS that provide balanced, detailed reporting on a variety of issues. I am not taking away from NPR. I listen to NPR when I can. It has its role. It is not PBS. Network news on the other hand considers a three minute profile to be "in depth". Cable News has its own agenda. I was alarmed by the article in the NYT. I would like to know who is Charles McGrath, what is his background.
Issywise : James Madison describe the governmental process set up by the Constitution as a loop of communication, with the leaders educating the public by their official performance of office and the public, in return, instructing the leaders at the ballot box.
Jefferson famously said he'd prefer a free press to a free government---because he couldn't imagine the latter existing without the former in place.
Lincoln talked of a government "of" the people--meaning a government that brewed up out of the boiling pot of American culture to truly represent it--to be "of" it.
The educating part of Madison's loop is at risk in America. PBS is part of the defense against this rot.
All commercial news presentations inherently value economic return most highly and so tend toward the lowest common denominator and maintaining a status quo that provides optimal security for their personal return on investment. Maximizing viewership at the expense of depth and quality of reportage isn't hardly controversial anymore among those who control access to our national dialog. The marketplace of ideas has be subordinated to the investment banking/ securities marketplace
Whether one is named Murdock or Sulzberger a publisher is going to influence content--it is human nature. Every publisher is a gatekeeper into the marketplace of ideas.
With the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine and the FCC's allowing the number of media owners to shrink, the marketplace of ideas is narrowing and homogenizing--there may be more outlets but there is increasingly less diverse contribution into the national dialog.
PBS is part of the defense against both the dumbing down of the marketplace of ideas and the increasing barriers to getting legitimate new perspectives and ideas expressed to the voting public.
Without a healthy marketplace of ideas, there can be no healthy democracy. Heck, the next thing you know, millions of Americans will be disenfranchised and the news will cover it only from the "horserace" perspective, completely missing the civil rights aspect of the disenfranchisement. We'll not even notice when our rights are taken because nobody will bother to tell us because all the news men and women will be pretty but under-educated and uninformed themselves.
Besides, as long as the sugar trust can receive federal subsidies, as long as earmarks can treat the national treasury like some kind of exploitable national resource to be mined by elected officials, then PBS should get funding. At least it does something for me personally.
Griffin Y. Anderson : PBS evening news hour is a daily must watch in our household and has been that for years. We rely on the unbiased and in depth reporting to give perspective in a complex world of special interests. Keep up the good work!
Oscar Colamonici : I am not surprised about the article's comments. They reflect the increasing investment in "ignorance" we have witnessed for the past 40 years in this country. After all, the more uneducated and ignorant the population, the easier they are to be manipulated and used to fulfill the agenda of a few. For example, unnecessary wars.
Patricia Eriksson : After living for 28 years abroad, PBS has been my lifeline! It is the only professional, intelligent, and timely organization. I do not want 200 cable channels, so have only the basic option where I can get PBS and through them BBC. Considering all the other government subsides please do not cut off independent media too.
Jeffery Vogel : I watch the Newshour every day. My TiVo is set to record the show nightly so I can watch later in the evening. This news show it much better than the networks - its about the news not the anchor.
Lisa : I can understand why NPR continues to increase in "listenership" - it's great programming and many of us are trapped in our cars for an hour or two a day. With respect to PBS, after being bombarded by news every 15 minutes (is this really news?) at work and the gym, I look forward to the News Hour's in-depth reporting at the end of the day. The other PBS programming provides an opportunity to watch something other than the typical law/medical/murder/mystery shows found on regular TV. We need to keep existing funding intact and people who use public TV (and radio for that matter) should continue to donate their "share" to keep it on.
Willie B : The news hour on PBS with Jim Lehrer and his very capable crew (who ask all the important and pointed questions of the experts) is the only news program I watch every weekday. They are clear thinkers and they are very articulate. Shields and Brooks give very balanced views. Next best is CSPAN, then CNN.
patricia johnson : I faithfully watch the NewsHour and rely on its in-depth studies of all issues, from Paul Salmon's economic analysis, to election rountables of citizens from all spectrums of the country. To lose this program or Frontline or Nova would be such a loss for all the citizens of the USA.
Tom Brown : I love the Times and its subsidiary, the Boston Globe. Any mention, however, of great media outlets and products in this country must include NPR, Jim Lehrer's News Hour, Frontline, Nova, etc. Nothing on the airwaves comes anywhere close to the in-depth nature, balance and professionalism offered by PBS and its subsidiaries. So, keep up the great work...and Congress keep up the funding!
Alberto : I´m a convinced that the free market forces of offer and demand are the best means to mantain, or discard, products and services. But in the case of PBS, which is truly a public service, it surely deserves some level of government subsidy along with contributions from viewers. It deserves govt. support more than wealthy corporatios. PBS quality programming is far above the commercial tv garbage out there.
Gribbb : Public radio and public television are an integral part of my life. I have not found the quality and variety of the programs anywhere else. Frankly, I would be lost without it.
msd : Unfortunately, funding cuts have forced PBS to resort to commercial advertisements and increased fund drives. However, it is still by far the best source of news, information, and educational programming on television.
Do as you will with NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX. But let's keep PBS going.
Tim : I have migrated from watching Fox, which has a conservative bias, to MSNBC, which has a liberal bias, to CNN, which is newsertainment, to the PBS NewsHour, which is the only honest and nonpartisan news show on television.
Furthermore, referencing the Nielson ratings as a reliable barometer for the viability of a news shows is ridiculous, although not quite as ridiculous as the NY Times questioning the relevancy of PBS, especially if you consider the lack of veracity in the Times’ reporting ( e.g., Judith Miller and Co).
George : At least the Times got one thing right, public television merits more money, not less. Let's be appropriately thankful and provide the necessary resources for the high quality and intelligence which PBS brings to news reporting and its general programs.
Robert Petzinger : I have not read the NY Times article anout the relevance of PBS, and I don't need to read it. My wife and I rely on the Jim Lehrer NewsHour. Having lived in England for several years, the NewsHour is the only newsworthy broadcast in the USA. Instead of seeking just a headline followed by less than 60 seconds of commentary, the NewsHour gives thoughtful in-depth coverage of jusy 4-stories each evening. Their choice of guests is consistently outstanding as they present all sides of an issue and they do so without the confrontational manner of so many other news shows. The question should be whether any other news station is relevant.
Anne Burgess : The nightly news is the one program I appreciate. I do read the New York Times and personally I think both sources are excelllent. The nightly news is appreciated especially because of the Honor Roll for and of the people in the armed services who have sacrificed their lives. The presentation of the Honor Roll could not be any better. Thank you.
Anne Burgess : The nightly news is the one program I appreciate. I do read the New York Times and personally I think both sources are excelllent. The nightly news is appreciated especially because of the Honor Roll for and of the people in the armed services who have sacrificed their lives. The presentation of the Honor Roll could not be any better. Thank you.
Bette : Now more than ever the News Hour is necessary. There is no other place where you can get unbiased in-depth coverage of a topic. I long ago stopped watching broadcast TV news, which tends to focus on the sensational and rarely offers two sides of a position. The News Hour is the one daily program I never miss, and the Washington Week in Review is also a must every Friday night.
Andrea Marshall : The Newshour on PBS is, in my opinion, the most thoughtful and balanced daily news coverage available. When reading the NY Times, the talent of the reporting pool is evident, as is its left-leaning bias. In fairness, the counter-point is generally presented in NY Times stories for those readers who are willing to turn to the 42nd graph on page 27. In contrast, I find it refreshing that the Newshour presents balanced coverage and depth from beginning to end.
DJ Yurick : Wow! Where do I begin? PBS offers such a diverse programming lineup of which the content is so unique that viewers from all sectors of our society are informed in a thought provoking manner. Our educational institutions have a venue that helps them to effectively teach. Political views are accepted across the spectrum to encourage opposing ideas. Science, music, (from opera to classical to doo-wop) programming, lend a foundation to what PBS is all about. Want to know how to cook, fix things around the house, hear the views and guests of Rose, Smiley and Moyers? Tune in to PBS. The Newshour with Jim Leherer is without question the leader in informational news broadcasts. They have a great production and news staff. Cable and commercial news could learn a lot from these guys. Newspaper outlets also receive a fair shake from PBS. (are you listening NYT?)
Go where you want to go across the TV spectrum, you'll come right back to PBS. Again and again. Got it?
Carol : Jim Lehrer is the best news program--so informative and interesting--I love it. I love PBS, period--great shows. And I only listen to NPR in my car. Keep these programs coming--what a breath of fresh air they are!
Steve : The Newshour is the best news program period. It is the only place to get detailed and intelligent news that is unbiased. Objective, real journalism that you cannot get on any other station. Especially when you compare it to the "unbiased" panel on Fox News. Not to mention great programs like Nova and Frontline. And what about all those educational shows for kids? How can Sesame Street not be deemed relevant? The bottom line is, if PBS disappeared we would all become uninformed and dumb.
Richard Colburn : PBS is our only dependable outlet for in depth news. Just try to watch commercial news. Offensive commercials targeted at specific audiences, exaggerated reportage of politics turning everything into a dog fight. No thanks.
Charles & Victoria Bricker : PBS is our primary source for news and entertainment. For news, we watch the BBC segment for international news, and the News Hour for non-partisan analysis of domestic issues. For entertainment, we watch the Charley Rose show and Masterpiece Theatre, both topnotch shows.
Bernie : Charles McGrath's Op-Ed commentary on the relevance of PBS may prove beneficial for the corporation. As someone who has never donated to PBS, I will do so this year. Also, though I am a loyal NewsHour viewer, I don't live in an assisted living facility. I'm only 33.
Vince : I have been a viewer of the News Hour for more than 25 years. The format has change but the service that the telecast offers remains outstanding. Not only is the events of the day reported but different sides of the event are presented to give the viewer the opportunity not only to learn what may affect them but in most situations opposing views of what is happening. History which the news is presenting is more of an art form than a science. It is a matter of opinion and if there is no contrast there is not too much to discuss.
Those who state diffently are needed to let the viewer decide for him/herself what source of information is bendfical to him/her. If it were not for "The News Hour" the person would not of had the opportunity to write the article.
I trust "The News Hour"
dr. ed kimbrell : The best informed people in this nation rely on NPR and PBS. Frontline, Nova, and The American Experience are used in university classrooms across the nation, providing accurate, thoughtful, and important history and current events. We no longer watch any of the networks, cable or broadcast, for news and documentary work. Congress needs to realize that PBS is the last bastion of serious reporting in the nation, our BBC.
Rebecca : The News Hour is the only news program I watch. I am always impressed with the quality of the discussion and the qualifications of the people participating in the discussion. And I want to emphasize the word "discussion" because there is no discussion on the other news programs. Also, Shields and Brooks are gentlemen who discuss issues in an intelligent and respectful way and it is such a relief to know that this kind of dialogue is still possible in Washington. Frontline, American Experience, History Detectives, NOVA etc. are the best shows on TV. Everytime I watch a program on PBS, I am reassured that American culture/society is not going to hell in a handbasket!
Ajax Troy : i haven't read the Times article yet, but i have felt for years that PBS forfeited its raison d'etra, when it started broadcasting commercials. Now, PBS is a mere poor imitation of the more polished and professional gold-mining operations that are the commercial networks. If PBS cannot provide a safe-harbour from the constant drone of gimme, gimme, gimme that viewers are subjected to, by all the other television stations then PBS is irrelevant. After all, PBS has been a home for second raters, like Bill Moyers and Ken Burns, who could not survive in commercial television. PBS programming is quite poor and any taxpayer money that it consumes is wasted.
Scott in Georgia : OK here's a real question, Is the New York Times still necessary? They helped with thier articles to lead us into the war in Iraq, remember? They mention "extended" news broadcasts as being outdated. Without the news hour there is no depth on television news. Without Frontline, there is no real in depth critical television investigative journalism. Shame on the NY times for their continued publication of articles that lead the American public in the wrong direction. WE NEED PBS aAND THE NEWS IT PROVIDES. I CAN"T BE SO SURE WE NEED THE NY TIMES ANY MORE.
Madge Manfred : The News Hour is THE source that we rely on for in-depth and impartial coverage of the news. The NY Times is cutting 100 people from its newsroom. Without a publically supported organization like PBS, we are at the mercy of market forces.
Retired on fixed income : On my limited basic cable, the News Hour is one of the few TV programs I receive that I feel is worth while,fair and far-reaching with national and world news. It would be terrible to lose it.
Linda : I agree with all the other comments. PBS is the ONLY news and information source that presents objective, thoughtful and balanced coverage of issues relevant for today as well as the future. I cannot imagine living without PBS and in particular "The News Hour with Jim Lehrer". Shame on the Times!
Marguerite Harkness : The Times writer, of course, did not mention children's programs, educational programs, how-to-programs--all of which have a reasonable and important audience. Nor, suddenly, does Frontline exist--and that is not a one-off show. I am not sure how this writer determines what is worth watching; I do agree that the number and length of pledge drives has become oppressive and, I suspect, counterproductive.
To suggest that commercial tv does news and public affairs as well as PBS is just ignorant. Does he watch Fox? And, if the numbers are the only criterion used here, is the Times still relevant? (Just kidding; I no more want to lose a great newspaper that I want to lose public television.)
As for the radio doing better: commuters are a captive audience, aren't they? And hooray for public radio as well. We need both.
Ted : While the complaint that PBS and NPR original programming is getting stale may be true its decline is not as bad as the commerical network fare. Go ahead, bring back "Upstairs Downstairs". I will not watch commerical sitcom or 'reality' programming; it is crude, lewd, and panders to the baser elements of society; why bother. On the news front, spare me the shouting between experts and biased commentators; I want thoughtful observations delivered in a respectful environment. I'm not conservative or liberal; I read the NY Times and the WSJ, I don't read USA Today.
Sarah Bell : Mr. Leheher- for my money the Newshour is the only news show available on TV that speaks with truth, balance, and with the assumption that the audience has the intelligence to understand intelligent discourse. It would be a huge loss to the discourse of this nation, to our civic responsibility to not have this resource available. Thank you for a job well done.
John Gelles : All the wotld's media react to criticism that our money and tax "systems" have failed to reach for economic democracy by pigeon-holing the critic as a money crank. PBS is no exception. This in spite of the fact that PBS ought to recieve huge amounts of government money created as investment in education and not necessarily received from taxes. For this reason I hate PBS: it does not address the issue at the heart of its and my economic existence.
For all the reasons stated by others I love PBS and never miss the News Hour or Charlie Rose and rarely miss any of their prime time programs created to inform, enrich and entertain me.
Peter J Whelan : PBS is a very important resource to have around. I record the News Hour with Jim Lehrer as it gives the most informative and unbiased coverage of US and World Events. I am also particularly fond of the analysis with Mark Shields and David Brooks. Even when on vacation, I look forward to watching the recorded Friday Show. This is but one example of the fine programing on PBS. If this channel were not available, think of what a sad state that American Awareness of world events would be in.
Bill C. : The News Hour is the only TV news worthy of my time. It is far superior to the network nightly news programs that are as much advertising as content. The loss of such high quality reporting by such dedicated folks would be a travesty.
Bob : PBS is my lifeline to reasoned, unbiased news, wonderful entertainment and a unique view into the world around me as no other television does. In addition, not instead of , I listing to much public radio. We meed more of both. Corporate greed is at the bottom of this... " As was said by John Le Carre.... "Like everyone who has too much, he wants more".... Relative to the tax break handouts to big oil, who have $40-50,000,000,000. PBS government assistance is so small. Shame for beinging up the issue.
VN from OZ : I watch the newshour with JL on SBS (a free to air channel in Australia). IMO PBS is by far the most mature and accurate news channel in North America. If I want to be entertained I go to the movies, if I want to know what Americans think, I watch PBS' Newshour, everything else is a gimmick.
L Maxwell : Yes, absolutely PBS is relevant and necessary. It is a cultural oasis in a desert of trashy television. It is not our only source for the arts on TV. Have you seen the drivel that passes as art on "Arts and Entertainment" (A&E) and Bravo? There has to be a forum somewhere on the airwaves for civil political discussion, documentaries and arts.
Teka : The NewsHours with Jim Lehrer is necessary for effective representative democracy in the U.S. Through his program, Mr. Leher consistently provides civil, intelligent, both-sides-of- the-issue discourse. The NewsHour offers timely political, economic, social, and cultural stories. One learns about the state of our education system, poetry, art as well as international information. I can't imagine a Friday night without Mark Shields and David Brooks. Mr. Lehrer is a deep, thoughtful, polite, and charming host at all times. Our youth must see that there is a place for manners and civilty.
Eugene : The success and value of the NY Times, like that of PBS and NPR, is tied to its position at the prow of the electorate. Bryan Caplan's economist's analysis (The Myth of the Rationl Voter) of the steering role of narrow slice of the most informed public opinion would predict that Newt Ginrich would try to bury PBS and NPR. But my Conservative neighbors also tune in to the News Hour, Frontline, and NOVA.
Ardent fan : In a world full of sensationalism and glitz, it is refreshing to watch both sides of a story in segments on the Newshour, learn in depth about topics from science, history, current events, and diverse cultures on many other regular shows. Nothing on commercial TV compares. Without PBS, I would be reading a lot more and saving on electronics, but I would lose a lot, too. Junk sells and the world is too commercial; PBS educates and entertains those who tune in. There are far more things that could be cut to save government money; maybe the author's muse should go to those!
Mary Bergman : The NewsHour is the most important link for me to the world -- its problems and its successes that bring joy and wonder and make us human. It is very serious and even handed in its reporting and also shares wonderful items in the arts and social world.
The NYT is vital also but for my needs they compliment each other with the NewsHour alerting me to watch for things in the Times.
Jim F : Have to respectfully disagree with the NYT. PBS may have some stinkers, nobody is perfect, but the assertion that Frontline and the News Hour are somehow getting dusty is plain ludicrous.
Now that Koppel has retired and Nightline has turned into a lame copy of 20/20, PBS has been left with the task of providing some balance and depth to the world's events.
The cable channels, which you would think would have the time to provide some depth and analysis, just seem to resemble network news broadcasts on 2 hour repeat loop. (half hour for Headline News)
PBS also brings us the BBC broadcasts which I find invaluable in the sense that it is instructive to learn how events in America and the World appear from outside the decidedly monolithic perspective of US network news.
The notion that the NYT finds PBS anachronistic is just plain silly. After all, in light of the internet isn't it really newspapers that are "musty"???
Spurr : I wake up every day and watch Charlie Rose before I go to work. When I come home I watch all the news programs . When I am in my car I listen to NPR. When I am in a store or public setting and I hear all the commercial garbage that is destroying all moral boundaries in this country it makes me so angry. OF course these greedy corporate monsters want to get rid of anything that competes with their ability to suck money out of any living creature within tv signal distance. Greed is destroying this country and powerful people are only powerful when they are given fear. People fear what they don't know. This is the information age and public television is the only information that isn't spun around capitalist greed. And have you seen NOVA?
Rod : 98% of my tv watching is spent with PBS. 2% is spent watching nascar on sundays.The Newshour at 7p.m. is in a word the BEST. Keep up the good work and thank you.
Gilrose : After watching the News Hour for years, I am convinced it is the only in-depth TV news source presented in an unbiased and intelligent manner. It is a welcomed relief from the shouting and ridiculous
programs posing as fair and balanced. The topics are well-researched and timely. The U.S. needs the PBS New Hour!!
Julie : Freedom depends on an informed citizenry. To participate responsibly and preserve individual freedoms means that we must have access to information. Without PBS this would be nearly impossible. With the cheesecake news programs of network television and the childish bullying news programs of the cable networks, the American public is already at risk for mistaking opinion for fact and is practically blocked out of any meaningful mechanism for participation in our political culture. Do we need PBS? Absolutely! What seems to have worn out its relevance is the paper based system of delivering news.
Jack Tyler : We've visited 32 countries & island nations over the past 7 years and, despite the diversity in cultures and locations of these countries, we've been amazed by the fact that people in many of them use and praise the On-Line News Hour. The Jim Lehrer News Hour is the pre-eminent broadcast news program, has been for many years, and by itself validates the value of Public TV. A simple test can verify this on any given day: visit the major news organizations' websites where their broadcast product is displayed (ABC, NBC, Fox, etc.) and examine the content. Without exception, it is entertainment that is being displayed far more than news. Then visit the OnLine News Hour and what do you see? Meaningful topics, thoughtfully reported and also discussed - usually from multiple positions.
Joe Branham : PBS offers the only consistently worthwhile programming on television in the U.S.A. My wife and I watch the Lehrer News Hour every night we are at home It is always excellent with outstanding reporters, commentators and interviewers. Not even 60 Minutes beats it for breadth and depth of interviews. Washington Week and Nightly Business Report are also outstanding, and we live for Great Performance musical,orchestral and theatrical productions. No other TV channel can be counted upon to offer such shows regularly. There are stale programs, true, but they are still preferable to the distasteful and flagrantly criminal, often pornographic, programming which predominates on other channels. The disservice to American children would be monumental if public broadcasting for them should be canceled because of lack of funding from our government.
Please do not fail us, legislators! This is one gift you can easily give the American public. Both PBS and NPR deserve federal support. What should be canceled is the war in Iraq, at far greater savings of federally managed funds. We expect the New York Times to answer its question, "Is PBS necessary?" pdq with a strongly affirmative "YOU BETCHA"!
Ro : PBS is the only TV station that treats its viewers as intelligent thoughtful individuals. I almost never watch any other station- even those that carry meaty content (alas only one or two) are so cluttered with commercials that the mute button on my remote is worn out!
It would be a sad commentary on our culture and values if PBS were, as The Times suggests, "irrelevant."
Jim Phalen : I love the newshour. The question is should the taxpayers be funding it? I say no. I also note that corporate advertising is becoming more and more prominent and commercial between shows. PBS does not show the whole gamut of cultural possibilities; when was the last time you saw a hunting or gun ownership based show in a supportive manner? I hope PBS can hang on but NOT with my tax dollars.
Richard Bancroft : I agree that PBS has limited appeal. I get most of my news from NPR while in my car. I do use the Lehrer show for lengthier coverage, and regularly search the "menu for the day" given by him in the beginning of the show. If I'm not interested, I tune out. I always like the Friday commentary Shields, et al. no matter the topic. Lehrer is very bland and not the typical "anchor" jazzed up for network/cable news. But I like it that way!
Don Reinders : While the technical aspects of TV, such as HD programing, continues to improve, the programing seems to spiral down inversely. The situation really calls for a boycot of brainless cable programing. In this mess that TV has become, the only worthwhile oasis is PBS. This remains as a reminder of what TV could have been. The Lehrer report is the only source of thoughtfull, non-biased, and unhyped news coverage around. Local news programs have largely become chatty, entertainment hybrids; network news is commercial soaked and hyped; the cable news networks and PBS are all biased, left or right. Lehrer is the only source left for intelligent centrist reporting.
Sylvia : I cannot imagine TV without PBS. Where else can one go for quality TV? The mainstream networks have prostituted themselves to corporate America and to those who would limit our freedoms. There are also very few cable shows that do any better. Speaking of cable, not everyone can afford the full range of stations available. Has American sunk so low that only those with higher incomes will be able to count on access to a full range of TV broadcasting?
Dr. Frank Douglas : I find he NY times article by Charles McGrath commenting on the effort of the Bush Administration to continue cutting funding for PBS only states the obvious and is not an attack on PBS. He notes that Public Radio is growing in listenership, while Public Television is losing watchers. It is true that producing TV shows is much more expensive than doing radio shows. This is a call for listeners and watchers to support what they value, and to lobby their Congressional representatives to provide support with OUR tax money for this journalistic system instead of spending money for "bridges to nowhere", as the now infamous earmark of Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska is known. Wake up, people! If we don't bother to tell Congress what is important to us, how will they know? They are not mind readers!
Neil Renshaw : Congratulations on a great program.From here in Australia the nightly program on SBS gives me an additional perspective of world events.
It appears you have touched a raw nerve somewhere,keep up the good work PBS
N.A.R. : Few broadcasts, if any, other than The Newshour so effectively provide civil discourse on the issues. The program compells viewers to apply the discipline necessary for critical thinking. In addition to superior coverage of politics and economics, both domestic and international, the program producers give due diligence to events in the Arts and Sciences. How enlightened is that!
Kathy : I wanted to make this comment on the NYT's website, but after making me register, I couldn't get back to the spot to submit my thoughts.
1st of all, Jim Lehrer is so YOUNG & HOT!! The NewsHour is the best news program on the planet. It is indepth, but more importantly, it presents both sides of the issues.
Even with the plethora of channels in this day of cable, satellite and the Internet, I often find myself tuning into PBS because its programs are more interesting, educational and relevant.
Television should be more than "eye candy."
portia : would you believe I am losing sleep over the possible loss of public television? It's the only station I watch! And I have given up listening to public radio. Don't ask me why, I just find WGBY and WUFT more appealing. And what happened to Susie Garrels on Paul Kanga's show. Suddenly she's gone. Oh dear. I was going to will my estate (which is considerable) to public t.v., now what shall I do.
DLJ Portland, OR : If is very frustrating to watch a commercial television so-called news program due to the constant repetitive recapping. And don't get me started on the dramas that are just rehashed story lines. CSI success was by adding quick picture of gore to mask the rehashing. As for sitcoms, I am appalled at the subject of sex in just about every promotional commercial for a sitcom. How a parent lets their child sit and watch commercial television is beyond me. I say yes to PBS. For one thing I would like to see more Austin City Limits. If there is 30 years of shows, bring em on.
Peg : I totally disagreed with the NYT article. The News Hour, Charlie Rose, and the American Experience are my favorites - not just on PBS, but on all of my 76 cable channels. The only point in the article which may have some validity: during pledge weeks there are way too many fluffy programs televised. I usually watch LESS PBS those weeks.
TD : I find News Hours informative, and balanced, and having depth. America is well-served having this wonderful program around. It is such big contrast from the biased, dumbed down commercial news programs.
Richard from Oz : Is there any hope for the US? It spends more on defence that almost the rest of the world put together yet begrudges money spent on creating comprehensive public radio and television service which can inform and unite the nation.
Caught in a time-warp of prehistoric, ideological thinking ostensibly designed to promote competition as, in so many cases when it should be pooling adequate resources to achieve a required outcome (New Orleans), it starves community projects of resources then whinges that "big government" does not work. Similarly an obsession with competition prevents the country having a universal health system comparable to that serving the rest of the west.
When it comes to public broadcasting, even a small sparsely populated country like Australia values and can support the international service Radio Australia, Radio National, News Radio, ABC Local Radio and SBS. In TV, there is ABC 1, ABC 2 and SBS, welcome purveyor of Newshour and Frontline. And that is in the absence of a public licence fee. Any attempts to starve these services of funds has recently helped elect a government more favourable to public broadcasting than its predecessor.
Then, of course, there is the BBC which is rapidly becoming the de facto public broadcaster to the world. Is the US prepared to play second fiddle in this area?
Are there so few intelligent, widely read inquiring US citizens who think similarly?
Jeff Ryan : I have been an avid viewer of PBS since adolescence and continue to regard it as the only American broadcaster which demonstrates respect for its audience. Regarding the Newshour, I fully appreciate the fact that I will not have to endure people screaming at each other to make a point in a discussion. Moreover, Newshour continues to cover events in detail after most American news providers lose interest, particularly when international events are involved. I would challenge the New York Times editorialist to find a program better than Nova that regularly attempts to inform the general public about the sometimes arcane subjects of scientific inquiry. The recent Nova programs concerning the quest to reach absolute zero are prime examples.
Terry : McGrath's article is an example of the very thing PBS still provides a bulwark against: opinion so poorly substantiated that it borders on screed. Are ratings a good measure of importance? If what's not attended by the public is therefore not necessary, then let's find out how many American citizens can name the amendments in the Bill of Rights; I'm sure we'll be happy to relinquish those rights when less than 1.4% of the public can remember what they are. Are broadcasts automatically weakened because they've endured a long time? If what's venerable is by definition not necessary, then perhaps all fine writers like Mr. McGrath should relinquish pens to younger colleagues. If there are channels that have learned from PBS and sometimes carry on their work even better, then hurray for PBS for its leadership. PBS is hardly without fault, but Mr. McGrath's criticisms are both unconstructive and unpersuasive -- and an example of the kind of writing, happily, that one doesn't find often on PBS.
Lindsay : I regularly watch the Newshour through our Australian SBS station. I am consistently impressed with the program's quality. In particular I am impressed with each of the presenters who show no bias and also with the way in which each of the paired regular commentators interact with each other. While they may disagree with the other person's point of view they respect the other person and respond in a way which further develops the conversation. I hope your program continues to prosper.
Jules : GDAY! from the Land Down Under.
The News Hour is great.
We have 3 free commercial public channels (7, 9 & 10)that show news? and limited documentataries, most of which is rubbish. The only options for decent news, current affiars and documentaries are the ABC Channel 2 (A for Australian) or SBS (Channel 28). SBS shows the Newshour (which I record), Frontline (which I never miss!) and NBR. Having these 3 programs allows me to keep "informed" on world current affairs (There's also a couple of good local shows on SBS and ABC).
JL and the rest of the Newshour team are AWESOME, quality reporting and production.
I hope the idiot who wrote/published the NY times article crawls back under the rock they come from.
Nan : I watch one TV program per day: The Newshour with Jim Lehrer. It is fair, balanced, and adult. We all know what it is not. If there's anything else worth watching on TV, it's on PBS. I realize I'm not a typical viewer, and I also know how much I would lose if there were no PBS.
J. Pat Geis : Except for 60 Minutes, PBS is the only TV that I watch. If PBS were to disappear, I wouldn't buy another TV set when Hi Def digital becomes de facto.
Joe Hogan : PBS and its programs are needed now more than ever. The drastic increase in commercial time and decrease in content quality of other network programming makes PBS all the more desirable and necessary. Please continue to inform, enlighten and enrich the lives of your viewers and resist the temptation to entertain the lowest common denominator in the television audience.
GCarmean : A sad commentary. Clearly, the writer in the NYT has not watched what passes for news on ABC, CBS, NBC, and all the cable garbage.
Those networks are designed to sell toilet paper. And, I suppose they do a good job at it. But, they cannot produce a quality news show.
They never have and never will.
concerned - Australia : I regularly watch the "news hour" in Australia (and formerly UK). The reason is that PBS usually gives a fair reflection of the US perspective on news. I have viewed (particularly when I lived in the US and also visited) other channells and have been appalled by their lack of objectivity, concern for parochial issues and self censorship (due no doubt to commercial/political interests). Naturally, PBS represents a US view of the world which is only one perspective - however to get a balanced reflection on world opinion PBS is to me the only reliable source. Other US sources are in my view so "commercial" that they do not represent a fair view but simple depress me given that they influence US opinion to the extent that they clearly do. Keep up the good work.
Ray Sunshine : We have always appreciated PBS, especially because we have not had cable for the last 25 years. Recently we got an HDTV and were delighted to find the rich pbs offerings over-the-air on HD. Now I need a recorder so I can be watching one PBS HD channel while I record the other for later viewing. We especially like the in-depth news and science programs.
David Healy : For this expatriate American, "The News Hour" is the main source of news about his home country. Living in Australia, a country that supports two public broadcasters, he has come to appreciate the objectivity and depth of research public broadcasters have to offer, and would deeply regret the demise of "The News Hour". To paraphrase Mark Twain, he sincerely hopes the reports of its death are greatly exaggerated.
Michael : PBS is needed now more than ever. PBS views news differently than the other networks, avoiding the sensational and focusing rather on news that is relevent to societal needs.
JUNE BOS : I have watched "The News Hour" for many years and other wonderful PBS programs. There are no other stations on air that can compete with PBS excellence. I have cable installed so I can vouch for that.
fimfim98 : "Irrelevance of PBS" is a nonsense. In my view, it's a puzzle how PBS managed to remain "quality TV" in spite of the shortage of funds. Naturally, the shortage does show and, if we want to complain about 30-year old programs still on the air, why don't we support PBS by pressuring Congress for more funds! And, apart from the "spruce-up" issues, let's NOT forget about the on-going cultural war in this country: the desire to suffocate PBS is an extension of the desire to replace teaching evolution with teaching creation. If we lose PBS, we'll sure see a repeat of TV/Radio/Bookstores banning singers/artists from the airwaves and bookshelves as we've seen it happen even over the recent years (remember Dixie Chicks? Salman Rushdie?)...
Douglas : The Newshour is the finest news program on the air. I am in my early 30's and may be a little younger than many viewers but I rely on it everyday. It's more necessary now than ever.
Ben Minton : PBS is an absolute necessity. Nowhere else can you find the thorough presentation of critical news issues. Lehrer Newshour interviews the newsmakers, themselves, at length: We see and hear the source rather than a commentators opinion of what a source said summed up with a 15 second quote. So does Charlie Rose who has a diversity of guests that nears infinity. Frontline tells stories that make one both cringe in shock of the previously unexamined subject and exult in pride that somewhere in America the truth can be seen by a large audience. A citizen cannot claim to be literate and knowledgeable unless he/she can fully learn the details of events affecting life. PBS does this wonderfully. If the goal is an informed electorate, the taxpayer gets money's worth. I am glad each year, for decades, to have given additional personal support.
Robert from Australia : PBS in general and NewsHour specifically provide this antipodean viewer with unbiased informed news and commentary that is absent from my local Australian and other available US sources - it is obvious you are skilled at presenting every facet of a newsworthy matter whilst holding to a central integrity.It is disappointing that the print media does not appreciate the complimentary rather than competitive nature of your program... many thanks for the past and best wishes for the years ahead !
Mikki Bouchee : I am surprised that the question is taken seriously...maybe this is the deate we needed to have...when Media control is managed by so few and political futures and direction are manipulated by the conglomerates ,the existence of PBS and especially "Newshour with Jim Lehrer " is required to throw a reality check into the shallow nass media which bombards our air waves. I live in Adelaide , Australia and I watch PBS every day. The Presenters/ Interviewers are intelligent, well researched and ask the hard questions and do not fear retribution from the sponsors..."knowledge is power" maybe that is the issue....we are being shown all sides of the issue...shame on you....well done "the show must go on" from across the sea....enjoy the debates/the interview and you make me think!!!!
A Once-Proud American : A few years ago, when Putin forced the last independent Russian TV station to close, I knew at that moment Russia had again become a dictatorship. (Oddly, in America, it took a couple years to hear about Putin's dictatorship on our news.) If we lose Frontline, Moyers, Now and other independent sources of crucial information about our government and corporate rulers, we will be very close to completing the crossing of the Rubicon, as they have already
done in Russia.
David : As a regular overseas resident viewer of the NewsHour I can only say of this latest stink, the News Hour and PBS is how Americans might wish they presented themselves to the world - Intelligent, thought provoking, considered, balanced debate, commentary and insight.
Instead, your own commercial media portrays all that is a twisted wreck in your war mongering, religious righteous, red neck,obsese, gun totting, morally and economically impoverished society. It only makes one reflect however unfairly how lucky we all are not to be American!. The Newshour is your best export and only demonstration of the good and great in American society.
HLC : I read Charles McGrath's article in the Times on Sunday and was disgusted by his pontificating. If he doesn't want to watch the NewsHour and other programs on PBS, that's his business, but millions of us do. Where else can one get nearly an hour of uninterrupted, in-depth news reports. "Nature" musty? By no means; I look forward to each new program and frequently watch the reruns too. Although I could afford to subscribe to cable or satellite, I choose not to. Most of the programs on the network stations are totally uninteresting to me.
Without PBS, I would rarely turn on the TV. I am a member of our local station in Chicago, but members can't keep our stations on the air without public financing. Once again, Congress must come to the rescue.
BTW, I intended to leave my comment on the New York Times website, but I can find no way to do so. Have they decided to cut off public comments on this issue?
Carmen Cameron : The New York Times is so selective and biased in its reporting that I'm not one bit surprised that they would resent the popularity of PBS's news programing, especially your program, Jim.
I check out the NTY front page online occasionally just to see which direction they're leaning in but I ALWAYS tune into your program daily to get the REAL news - in depth and balanced!
So are you relevant to me? Far more relevant to the corporate controlled franchises BY A MILE!!!
So tell the NYT to go suck lemons. (They're just jealous and resentful that you're still around.)
Carmen M. Cameron
Louisville, KY
Bob T : A New York Times article that questions the value of PBS reflects poorly upon that newspaper which I will not read for information. PBS as a source of news and programs is essential for our democratic country. Repeated TV programs are not a problem because we realize that the PBS budget is limited by available funds while TV hours are demanding. The PBS directors do well to devote funding to news, educational programs, art, music, science and even This Old House which may have funding from tool and building supply sources. PBS has an important and necessary place in informing and educating us, the Public, even though sadly only 10 % of our American people may watch PBS. So long as PBS is available and fully functioning with adequate funding we can expect more and more people to get the word and and understand the value of PBS. Dictatorships always want to throttle free and open news sources that are not controllable. Let us not fall into that control situation. Indeed, our income tax forms could have a voluntary box where we the tax-payers could pay extra as a routine for PBS support.
Geoff : At a time where "dumbing down" is commonplace in most of the media. When "reality shows" have convinced the sheep that there own lives should be put on Hold. I thank God (or Darwin) that i still have PBS to fall back on, on the few occasions i choose to turn on the idiotbox. Esp the Newshour and Frontline.
megala : Thank you, News Hour, for the only hype- and garbage-free News. You truly are the only unbiased News on the and online. Most importantly - I trust you.
Bramthatch : With apologies to Pink Floyd: I've got 500 channels of **** on the TV to choose from.
But at least PBS gives one's mind somewhere to
fly to.
Apprxam : Rams, I agree. I can't tell the difference between the Times and the Bush administration. Without PBS, the BBC and NPR pushing them and others, at times, I fear that we'd know nothing about the world around us.
Judy : How could anyone with sense consider doing away with PBS? It has the only balanced news and stimulating programs on TV. The New York Times is willing to overlook "Nova, Frontline, American Experience and so many other worthwhile programs.
And furthermore, the elitist New York Times doesn't consider that during a possible recession, people will cut back expenses such as cable in order to pay for $100 a barrel oil. Shame on you NYT.
continual learner : As a person who requires education as an integral part of my life the PBS system is essential to my life.
Anyone who would question the revelancy of PBS or NPR has an agenda likened to the ostrich , who hides its head to avoid dissonance in its life.
In times when commercial network news has become infotainment the only rationall and unbiased ( as opposed to the Fox Network ) news available to the masses over the "free " airwaves , is PBS/NPS.
When the people lose the source of information available to them they are dependent on the manipulation that was so feared by Marshall McCluen who stated that the media was the message.
Don"t let those who would like you to be lemmings take your sources of information away>
"Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!"
TomE : We watch the Newshour almost every night. We feel it is the only broadcast that provides insight and a balanced view of topics of interest and concern. We do not bother w/ the sensationalism that drives the local "newscasts". Also, I can't recall when I last watched a network national newscast.
Al ,Port Richey, Fl : Half a century ago Newton Minnow, then chairman of the FCC called television the vast wasteland. Recently the FCC despite overwhelming public opposition demonstrated by the public when the commissioners held hearings across the country and violating the law by noot waiting for tthe full 60 day comment period required for the Federal Register they went ahead and allowed further media consolidation. I have no doubt that Dan Rather lost hhis job at CBS due to pressure by Karl Rove and company on Sumner Redstone. THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED DURING THE PALEY ERA.Newscasts are now profit centers like any other programming and have been driven by ratings rather than journalist standards. This is reason we must continue to have PBS. Last Friday I was in the audience for the taping of Washington Week and the place was packed. Nova recently did a reenactment of the trial Kitzmiller v Dover Area Board of Education. The court decision sets precedeentbfor only a small area of Pennsylvania, however,the case has national implications. Just today the Florida Board of education narrowly held that evolution must be taughht in Florida schools and no doubt there will be challenges. The NOVA show paid minute attention to the legal details of the case and I will be surprised if the program is not nominated for an Emmy for best documentary. Our local affiliate WEDU,has excelllent local programming such as Florida This Week and Gulf Coast Journal. It is for this reason we have to lobby congress to keep PBS funded. It iis TV for people who can think for themselves.
Dorothy T. Kiljan : PBS is indeed necessary, for it offers high quality educational and entertaining programming to the general community. The programs enhance our lives, rather than degrade them, as too many other networks are wont to do. PBS deserves our support, not undue faultfinding. In so far as improvement is needed, so is more support and funding.
J Meyer : PBS is for the public. There needs to be alternative informative views such as those on Bill Moyers, Frontline, Now, History, quality programing for children and much more. There needs to be programing without constant irritating interruptions from junk advertising. Fox is a mouth piece for extreme right wing pundits, CNN reiterates what ever all the other media says over and over without much critical thinking. I no longer watch the News Hour. When I want to know what is really going as far as the news I watch Democracy Now which is seen on Free Speech TV and Link TV.
jlabarge : Good heavens! What a (gratutitous and self-serving) question. Have I fallen victim to another silly (but effective)marketing strategy in reading this piece of fluff and then responding to it? Thank heavens I can turn to PBS for real news,thoughtful analysis, and stimulating programming.
Wendy Glover : I believe the New York Times is being very insular in looking at PBS Broadcasting from purely an American point of view.
It has always been a mystery to my husband and I how few Americans realise the interest shown in America by nearly every other nationality. What happens in America can have either a beneficial or devastating impact on many other countries (viz. sub-prime loans). We are therefore truly interested in watching public broadcasting which has (we presume) total independence.
My husband and I watch "The News Hour" every evening and, as a result, have a good feel about what is happening.
May I suggest the New York Times complete its work by seeking information on ratings from those TV stations around the world that broadcast PBS programs.
Yours sincerely,
Wendy Glover
Christina Kook : PBS and most especially The Newshour educates its viewers on the critical issues of our time. They offer a wide variety of intelligent view points from Professors, Agency Officials, Scientists, Military Generals and various officials and dignitaries. Civil society asks us to listen and respond. The Newshour gives us nuanced debate so we can help make change for the better. We need pbs.
Karen Benson : I was born and raised in the US, but now I live in Australia where most people are content to get the five free stations. Paid TV is available, but not the norm like in the US. There are three commercial channels - 7, 9 and 10 (which show LOTS of American shows, I might add) one public channel - ABC (A as in Australian) and one sort of in-between commercial and public, SBS.
SBS shows PBS's The News Hour on weekday afternoons, and I enjoy catching up with the US news when I get home from work. It might be wise to see how many other internationals watch this and other PBS produced shows before giving it the axe.
SBS shows many BBC and other documentaries and is a well-respected channel. It has many modern, well-made shows on environmental issues, political issues and many other relevant topics.
Unfortunately PBS has developed a reputation of showing decades-old British comedies or poor quality recordings of symphony orchestra performances.
I do believe there is a place for PBS in the future if the channel can manage to re-define itself. A good look at Australian television would be a good place to start.
David Baughan : I've been in Australia and New Zealand the past three years. Not only have I been glad the PBS Newshour is broadcast (by delay by one of the public channels) in Australia, but I have been impressed with how many Aussies watch it for the quality of the reporting of US and international news. Consider its value in international news and the US image abroad. People rarely shout at each other or interrupt each other. People with expertise with different perspectives share their knowledge and opinions respectfully. What a remarkable impression and contribution for American media to provide to the world! It begs the question, "Why don't other American news outlets do the same?"
Leo Weston : I am from Australia and over the past few years have appreciated access through an Australian public television station to PBS's Newshour program. It has provided me with unbiased news, covering some of the most important issues facing the globe, from climate change to the war in Iraq and more recently the 2008 Presidential election campaign. It is almost impossible in Australia to find access to media (of any medium) that is as fair, indepth and encompassing. I urge all American's to support the continued existence of PBS and the Newshour. However, I encourage, continuing the debate in the changing media environment, ultimately creating a more relevant set of programming.
Malia : I love Newhour. I am a 29 year old viewer and watch segments several times a week online.
But I will agree with the NYT article that some faces of some 20 and 30-somethings on the News hour would be good addition to an already stellar news group.
Elia Basurto : PBS represents the very best use of TV media to inform, to educate, to bring enjoyment and respect for nature, for science, for the arts, for history, for the people of this country and for the world. It offers intelligent discussions of events occurring in our times nationally and internationally, with diverse arguments and with personalities who have excelled or are authorities in their fields: the arts, science, culture, nature, politics. More could be done to inform and educate its viewers about the value of other cultures to help Americans to respect other peoples and languages more, and to cultivate the feeling of interdependence and of being part of this world reality, not separate or apart. For that, there has to be more financial support from the members of society and its institutions. The US government needs to have a more serious commitment and support to the education of its population to achieve higher levels in the quality of life for all its members.
Margo : I love PBS. At almost anytime there is something of value to watch. I'm from Chicago and love Chicago Tonight. It gives you the in depth news you never get on the 10:00 news. I especially love Tavis and Charlie, though I do have trouble staying up that late.Nothing else offers what PBS does.What about Mystery--Prime Suspect, Lynley, Poirot, and more?
Lorin : with the deregulation of the FCC,WE need a news source that does NOT represent Corporate interest or agenda. PBS is extremely important to the the Conscience of the American People.
Annie Hanson : I am Aussie from Sydney and watching Jim Lehrer and the team is a regular (daily) event for me. The quality of news reporting and discussion and the range of subjects canvassed I find most interesting.
Obviously there are some subjects specifically for the U.S audience of which I have no understanding but even so I learn - as I am sure many many more people do also. To lose this would cause a symptom that I would imagine could be similar to going deaf. I can't imagine how an institution such as the New York Times could instigate such a discussion.
Kind regards (and I hope nothing changes)
Annie Hanson
Peter & Karen Barber, Reno : For us, the NY Times article was timely, because the author has come to exactly the opposite conclusion that we recently reached. We canceled our cable service a few weeks ago after we realized that we were mostly watching PBS and that we could pick it up over the air (even the HD broadcast) with a rabbit-ears antenna. Previously, two-thirds of our TV spending was used to subscribe to cable service and one-third to public television. Now that we are saving $600 per year without cable service, we can give more to PBS! Nature, NOVA, Frontline, Antiques Road Show, Austin City Limits, and a whole variety of other regular and special programs (pbs.org lists them all) result in something interesting to watch (and learn from) almost every day. Admittedly, we’re not fans of everything, like the old BBC programs, but these programs must have a following among some viewers. Finally, we watch The News Hour with Jim Lehrer (and his talented team) every day! We feel fortunate to have both PBS and NPR.
grant taylor : i am writing from australia, having just watched a delayed telecast of the News Hour, delayed as in Tuesday's News Hour. I have not read The New York Times article, though I will a bit later.
However, let me state that The News Hour is an absolute must for me, delivering, rational, independent, non-spin news analysis I simply cannot get on the lack-lustre commercial news services in this country. Go News Hour!!!!
Nadia : I live in Australia, and on our international public channel, SBS, they show the Newshour with Jim Lehrer. I watch it religiously. I was interested that the article suggested that cable now made public broadcasting redundant. However, the news programs offered on channels such as Fox and CNN do not compare, in my opinion, to the Newshour.
Brian : As some have already pointed out... funny that I wouldn't have heard about the NY Times article in the first place if I hadn't learned of it by watching PBS, more specifically the News Hour. So then which outlet is more relevant?
wasted irony : Are they REALLY going to try and to cast dispersion on our public broadcasting stations. Really? I would think that the NY Times could take better aim. That's just stupid. That's like the stinky grade school bully beating up on the nerds, and we all KNOW how that turned out. (Bill Gates, George Lucas, Ken Burns...)
Apprxam : Well, I guess NewsHour is peeling away adverts from the Times...no, wait a minute, maybe PBS is just better at the news thing then they are. No threat too small for the "paper of record" I guess. Why should they determine what's relevant.
DK : Whether pbs is still relevant and how should it be funded are two separate questions.
As for relevancy, let me just say ... Duh!
Open you your tv guide. Scan what the promise of 500 channels has delivered. Then answer the question.
I admit I don't understand the fascination with antiques, british drama and ballroom dancing, but i can tell you that in a list of credible voices in tv journalism there's Jim Lerher, Gwen Ifell, Walter Cronkite, and then ... WHO?
Anyone who can compare Nova with the discover channel, Frontline to 60 minutes, or american experience with the history channel is probably better served by one of the other 499 channels available ... enjoy!
As for funding ... i can intellectually be at least sympathetic to those who think that in an emerging online market, that public funding is a legitimate question for public debate.
I don't support this view, but i am sympathetic.
While we are having that conversation about public expenditures, lets also discuss tax subsidies for ethanol, sugar beets, bridges to BFE, name your favorite earmark. Suddenly a few buck so that the entire radio/tv spectrum isn't a monument to the lowest common denominator, celebrity worship or some kind of 1984'isk mental heroin for a public that can't deal with complex issues doesn't sound like such a bad deal does it.
Art Luden : PBS is a valuable independent voice which stands alone in its quality of reporting. I We only receive a few PBS shows here in Australia, but I watch Jim Lehrer's Newshour daily. Long Live PBS.
Karen : My PBS station, WCNY Syracuse NY, provides excellent programming. It's basically the only station I ever watch. The "News Hour" provides much more informative news than any of the national networks. WCNY's programming is a relief from the "reality shows" on the other networks. For those of us who live in rural communities with no access to cable or who are not interested in satellite, PBS offers a refreshing alternative. This is another attempt by the Bush administration to cater to big business.
VLG : Newshour, Charlie Rose and Frontline are some of the only news and topic-related programming I trust. Most of what is not on PBS that passes for news (excluding foreign programming such as BBC) is garbage.
Rams1942 : Of course the Bush administration hates PBS. They can't tolerate unbiased news or truth of any kind. Witness their attack on science. It will be so good when this disgrace to human intelligence is gone. No previous American has done so much damage in so little time.
E. Dorann, NYC : So, the "fix" is in at the NY Times. That paper is becoming a pathetic Murdoch wannabe. PBS is very necessary for all the people who do not have 500 cable channels and multiple news options. Newshour, Independent Lense, Frontline, Expose, BBC News, Now, Washington Week and Bill Moyers Journal; these are the shows that let people know what's really going on in the World. Why does Charles McGrath want to pit NPR against PBS? Does he really believe them to be mutually exclusive? Or is the point to divide and conquer? Perhaps Mr. McGrath should write another column and investigate why readership at the NY Times is shrinking faster than the Arctic glaciers. Or does Mr. McGrath believe that Global Warming is just a liberal hoax spawned by PBS? Long live Jim, Ray, Judy, Margaret, Jeff, Gwen, Bill and my hero, Mark Shields!
Tom MacArthur : PBS leads all broadcast or cable channels received in homes in terms of fairness, appropriateness and breadth of content, interest, value, transmission of information without commercial interuption, and many more positive characteristics. Since PBS does not depend on direct advertising but on commercial, public and private grants, the question is, does PBS programming offer benefits, that must be maintained, beyond those provided by commercial network programming?
DUH!!
Ron Adkins : "Is PBS Still Necessary?" Heavens, YES. Before proceeding I should say that I do not watch PBS 24 hours a day and cannot, therefore, comment on everything. Moreover, since a very substantial portion of my TV watching time is spent with PBS, I'm not necessarily as familiar with the competition as would be appropriate for making comparisons. And, I, too, listen a great deal to NPR.
I watch The NewsHour almost very night, and Friday night is definitely "stay at home" right through Bill Moyers Journal. I don't catch every Frontline or Nova, but I don't miss many either.
My wife and I have become political junkies for this primary campaign, and we will flip over to CNN and MSNBC, especially if PBS isn't iving "extended" coverage to the returns. That usually doesn't last very long; Wolf Blitzer seems barely competent, and I tire quickly of shouting panel discussions(?).
OK, so I'm probably not a conventional watcher of TV. I've provided some financial support to PBS for decades, so, as is sometimes said, perhaps I watch and/or listen differently. I have dipped a toe into some of cable offerings, some of which have been a delight ("Weeds," "Sopranos") but over 90% of the channels I receive seem to have worthless or insulting offerings.
Were the powers that be able to suppress PBS, I would likely cancel my cable service and sell the receiver. This would give me more time for The Economist, Atlantic Monthly, and my stacks of booksl. (Hmm, I'd best not dwell on that; I've just received the New York Review of Books.)
Ron Adkins, Tacoma
marc ramirez : While I agree that PBS is not perfect, sticks relentlessly to some tired old shows, runs out of ideas sometimes for good new ones, or dumbs down/abbreviates some potentially wonderful series (such as Jane Austen), some of McGrath's comments are unfair. To name one, Jim Lehrer's "NewsHour" may be decades old, but then, and now it puts most other news broadcasts to shame. It provides thoughtful, unbiased and probing discussions of current events, and does so with impeccable integrity - is that out of date?
Also, Mr McGrath seems to have forgotten that there are people out there who can't afford cable. Where will they go for quality programs? Despite annoying fund drives and sponsorship sound bites, there is still a great gulf between the inane, raucous chatter of commercial networks, and PBS programing. "Is PBS still necessary?" I find it hard to believe that a civic minded paper could ask such a question.
Jim Newell : Not necessary? NOT Necessary?? NOT NECESSARY??? What was the reporter smoking to come up with such ridiculous statements and commments? PBS is the network (we are lucky enough to have four PBS stations) we watch THE MOST. Can't imaging TV without PBS. Keep up the great work PBS, hopefully with the far right wing gone you will get properly funded again.
B. Levine : I would sink without PBS. The few commercial stations I can get are completely offensive and toxic and I cannot afford Cable. So PBS is an oasis in my life. I always sign online petitions on its behalf. On the otherhand, I also email a program contact if I think a particular program or segment misses the mark. Sure, there are too many repeats and Golden Oldies and Lawrence Welk is not my style, but considering the alternatives for me, thank you for being there PBS. P.S. Doesn't the writer of the Times article know that many people cannot afford The Discovery or History channels?"
Michael Rademacher : I cannot watch/listen to "sound bites" or "visual glimpse" punctuated by 5 minutes of noisy advertizing to get the information one needs in this world. None of the major networks or all news cable services provide the in depth reporting of events or noteworthy issues that I get on PBS and the News Hour. PBS is the only TV station I actualy watch and financially I support it without being prompted by their give-aways on the pledges. It is an oasis in the desert TV broadcasting.
James : I've been watching the News Hour for as long as I can remember (I'm 27), and when I was a kid, my parents had a pretty strict "PBS only" TV policy. Sesame Street, 3-2-1 Contact, Square One, Nova, Mystery! and of course, the News Hour - these shows entertained and educated me, and generally enriched my life.
Since I've gotten older, I've also come to appreciated Charlie Rose and Now as well, and I've introduced many friends to the News Hour, which remains the best television news source, bar none.
I think that today more than ever, there is a great need for quality educational and entertainment programming such as that provided by PBS.
I think also that with the increasingly commercialized news offerings on other channels, there's a real need to show people what they *should* see, as opposed to what they *want* to see. That is, it's very easy to entice people to watch "news" fluff with flashy graphics or salacious stories, but it takes a different (i.e. non-commercial) sort of motivation to permit the editorial integrity that chooses useful and relevant topics and presents them in a balanced and intelligent way. There's so many choices already that providing one channel of consistent, quality, family-friendly programming doesn't take away any choices from anyone, and it undoubtedly adds a great deal to the television landscape.
Long live PBS!
William : The News Hour is the best program on television, period. It consistently presents in depth and broad ranging reports that can be found nowhere else.
This is a national necessity and should be maintained forever.
FOG : PBS and NPR are the only sources for the average income earner to retrieve fairly unbiased information about the world that surrounds us. Commercial TV and radio are not worth a second of time if one wants to know what’s going on locally or world wide.
The New York Times evidently has gotten rid of all their journalists to satisfy the bottom-line. Is now feverishly working to even the playing field in the Public Broadcasting realm.
NYT your kidding, right? : COMMERCIAL CLAP TRAP'S WHATS IRRELEVANT, CHILDISH DRIVEL AND AN INSULT TO ALL BIPEDS. CAN'T STOMACH THE MINDLESS AND ENDLESS COMMERCIALS AND EVEN WORSE PROGRAMMING. PBS OR NOTHING! NATIONAL IQ WOULD INCREASE 20 POINTS OR MORE IF COMMERCIAL TV WERE NONEXISTENT.
Francesco Bullo : The Newshour is by far the most informative, most
intellectually stimulating and best organized
news show on air today. It's one of the best
investment that public money can buy.
JoEllen : The best of t.v. is PBS. The Newshour provides balanced and in-depth views on topics. It is objective and informative newscasting. The other programs are educational, informative and entertaining. We love PBS in our home and are grateful for the intelligent programming.
Vernon Threlkeld : I certainly hope Congress will INCREASE the support for PBS and NPR. I agree with others that the News Hour is essentially the only adult evening news program on television. It provides real coverage, not vignettes. It is rather difficult to understand Mr. McGrath's support of the Bush administration's prolonged war against support of a valuable public asset. Perhaps "McGrath" is simply Grover Norquist's nom de plume.
viator : All I regularly hear of the New York Times is what columnist David Brooks says on the News Hour With Jim Lehrer. Is PBS relevant? Somewhat more so, I think, than the Times.
Ingelore Weinberg : The published comments in favor of PBS already said it better than I can. Yes, NPR has done well and is our mainstay all day long. However, it DOES NOT take the place of the best of PBS - the trustworthiness of the Lehrer Report and David Brancoccio's Now, and best of all, Bill Moyer's rich offerings. There are others also. I imagine televion is expensive to produce. But non commercial programs add to the airwaves that no commercial station can offer - the many sided ways of looking at every issue that is so especially important especially in our life today. Thank God for both PBS and NPR!!!!!!!
David Zimmerman : I am a 59 yr old living in Anchorage, AK and am a member of KSKA/KAKM here. I am absolutely appalled by those who would cut funding or somehow suggest that The News Hour is anything other then a vital source of truly balanced and completely honest news and analysis. Far superior to any of the other so called
news programs. It is one of the remaining signs that our Democracy isn't too far gone yet.
N Hadjimichael : As an Australian with a keen interest in US politics and society, I can confirm that the daily news program with Jim Lehrer is a well respected source of quality analysis on all things American. We might be one of your oldest and strongest allies (in goods times and in bad) ... but Australians are aware that reliance on commercial networks or the likes of Fox / CNN for news about our "buddy" would be a poor option. America needs more friends ... and informed friends.
magan2008 : If PBS cost us 2 or 3 times as much as it does, it would be worth every penny. Seeing PBS in question is a big red flag that everything good and worthwhile in our society is at risk.
Ms. Robinson, Los Angeles : To The New York Times Newspaper& Mr.Gustafson:
Yes, the News Hour is still relevant!It's timely,interesting and underwstandable. Your shallow criticism is unwarranted. I admire jim Lehrer. Would the program seem relevant if it were discussing the "ups and downs of Britney Spears?" Would it seem more upbeat if the lead stories were about the latest car chases or who shot whom from Mon thru Fri? I don't think so. You under-rate the program and its viewer;theknowledge and experience of the journalists,and dare to judge its relevance based on the age of Jim Lehrer. How superficial can you be? I do not have cable TV because it is filled with the same non-stop commercialism as regular broadcast TV, and is not worth the $60.00/mo price tag. I am a proud member of public TV for a fraction of the cost of cable, and there is so much more substance at PBS. I am a citizen who likes to inform herself about politics, the Iraq War and other relevant news; and the News Hour fulfills that need. I like how the News Hour presents the news, not 30 second sound bites, but in segments where there is time to have a civil discussion or coherent presentation. I don't like to multi-task while watching the news, and I don't want to know the gross proceeds of the latest movies and what movies are going to DVD, etc. And comparing national public radio and its growth to public TV and the News Hour, is comparing apples to oranges. I think you know that, and you are way off base. I read your article on line to see the words for myself;I would not have bought a copy of the Times for your article. Perhaps some of our U.S. tax dollars being squandered on corrupt Iraqi officials could be spent to give PBS and the News Hour a "face lift that you would approve of.
Over and Out!
Marko : I also think PBS is head and shoulders above any other TV network easily available in the USA, including the BBC. But it is also my opinion that standards have been compromised. It seems to equate quality with production values (which are great)more than with programing and content. It is targetting a younger demographic than it used to, and has adopted a pop idiom. Only the News Hour seems to be as good as it was, though it has also changed in a number of ways. I live in Southern California, and have several stations available.
Martin W : I look to PBS for in-depth coverage of a subject and for civil and rational discussion by experts. The News Hour and Bill Moyers' Journal and Frontline are wonderful examples, as is Washington Week and Now. I also like a lot of the Charlie Rose Show interviews, but certainly not all of them. Plugging current unispired movies by uninteresting actors and directors does not make for great TV. Masterpiece Theater has been a rewarding series although I do not know why we cannot get an American literature series of like worth. Some of the other British series like The Vicar of Dilby, Monty Python and Fawlty Towers have been a delight. The American sit-coms on commercial channels are one-joke horrors for the most part. I have never watched daytime PBS but my daughter-in-law tells me that the children's programming is outstanding in quality and holds my grandchild's interest while conveying messages of love and morality. In terms of left-wing bias, I do not see it in most shows but it is obviously a feature of Moyers' show. However, we all still remember the years of Bill Buckley's equivalent on the other side. I appreciate that kind of intelligent analysis of the issues, no matter which side it comes from. Commercial TV has degraded to 30 second bumper-sticker news briefs and shouting matches. I would advocate having Newt Gingrich or Bill Kristol do a Bill Moyers type show on PBS and trying to encourage Ted Koppel to re-create a Nightline show of the quality he used to do on ABC. The current version is a disgrace. I would also like to see shows like the ones that Leonard Bernstein used to do to interest and educate young people about classical music. There are many young and exciting conductors like David Robertson and Michael Tilson thomas who could do the job. How about showing the saturday afternoon performances of the Metropolitan Opera which are now available at theaters and museums across the nation. Quality and authority, depth and truth are the hallmarks of PBS and it would be a shame to lose it to commercial fluff and blather. Keep up the good fight!
douglas melton : The News Hour is vastly superior to any other TV news program. The news is delivered in a simple straight forward format by smart newscasters. Stories are given significantly more time than on network or cable news. There is a decided lack of the tedious and obnoxious graphics that clutter the look of other news programs and the personalities of the newscasters take a back seat to the actual news. For me, there is no comparison. Thank goodness some people in Congress still see the value in a public institution like PBS. Otherwise, all TV news would suck.
Christopher Biltoft : In a medium awash in rubbish interspersed with tawdry and inane commercials, PBS remains a breath of fresh air. The format may be old, but the News Hour With Jim Lehrer presents essential news and commentary in a relatively digestible and unbiased format. Also, presenting the names and photos of those killed in the Bush Administration's misadventures in Iraq has helped to keep us focused on the costs that some of our citizens bear as a consequence of ill-advised decisions by a feckless and mendacious president. No other medium has provided such a service to the families of the fallen. The Bush Administration's final effort to destroy PBS and programs like the News Hour must be firmly resisited.
Diana Decker : Jim, I grew up watching PBS with my father. It is the ONLY programming that I can bear to watch, because it is INTELLIGENT. The News Hour is a vital source of factual debate, not just the SPUN & Politicized Sensationalism of commercial "news shows". That is what they are, complete with "leading men" who tell us what we should be ANGRY about.... I have supported PBS since I began working 30 years ago. If it were not for PBS and the broadcasting from UCSD, I would not watch TV.
Steve Surowiec : I have found most of commercial television to be irrelevant. Frankly, there is little else out there that comes close to the quality of PBS. I have come to rely on its brilliance and integrity for an unbiased understanding of the world. For someone to suggest that PBS is irrelevant confirms what I have long suspected -- there are some people who live in ashcans. I would continue to support PBS if it came down to my last dime. Where else could we get more bang for the buck? Keep up the fantastic work!
Douglas Bell : Certainly PBS has been around a long time but it has the best programs and is not biased as are most of the commercial stations.I can't imagine TV without PBS. Do you want more of Fox? I hope not.
Ava : Why, dont you want Americans to get some REAL new as opposed to viewpoints and editorials? Please dont sprout such bad ideas for Americans and the rest of the world- Please dont destroy us Human Beings!
Clair Weiss : Jim. I decry the attempt of corporate interests to know "The New Hour with Jim Leherer" off the air. It is gold standard against which all other news programs are judged. I was pained when the FCC relaxed their rules and allowed more cities to have one dominant player by owning the newspapers, TV stations and multiple radio stations. I am fortunate to be near Vancouver BC and can get quality newcasts on the CBC and BBC. But still, the News Hour is the only program that I always watch five days a week. If the corporate interests are successful in knocking this program off the air, I will give up TV altogether and sell my set . . and I'm deadly serious about this!! Clair Weiss Bellingham WA
Cary Stitt : PBS irrelevant? The premise in the NYT article centers on audience numbers. If that's the case, Americans should see nothing but reality shows and sporting events. Theatre, classical music, ballet and the visual arts command dismal audience share. Should they be eliminated as well?
The country is drowning in a sea of banality. It is PBS and NPR that may keep our national head above water. George Bush is an ignorant man. Do you really want to follow the budgetary advice of his administration?
zed : The following takes excerpts from the NY Times article and makes reply.
"Forty years ago it really was different. There were only three networks, and none of them were known for challenging or high-minded programming. Indeed, public broadcasting came into being out of collective despair over what had become of the airwaves. Cable has changed all that. There are not only countless more channels to chose from now, but many offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV, and in at least some instances they do it better."
-Cable has not "changed all that". It is more effectively noted that while there are specialty cable channels which have taken a clue from PBS and specialized in one aspect or another of the quality programming PBS brought to the air, these are specialists where PBS remians the generalist and so stands a better chance of exposing the uniformed (especially youth) to a variety of things they would not otherwise encounter - hence PBS continues to lead the herd.
- Moreover, most of the junk on cable is incredibly dumbed down and booorrrring! By contrast, except for new stuff obviously forced on PBS by the half witted washington bosses, PBS continues to produce and air smart and genuinely informative stuff.
- Best of all, those of us left who prefer not to be a prisoner of an umbilical controlled by some company of questionable ethical / political behavior can get this stuff off the air - not subject to unseen corporate censorship (like the web is being now assualted).
"Radio benefits of course from being a smaller target, and from attracting fewer political enemies. In public television especially it used to be axiomatic that attacks on the budget were retaliation for perceived liberal bias. Newt Gingrich was quite upfront about punishing PBS when he began his budgetary onslaught back in 1995. By now, though, that war ought to be over. These days the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is run by Republicans, and a few years ago, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who was then chairman of PBS, wasn’t the least bit shy about trying to arm-wrestle stations into running a program whose host was Paul Gigot, editor of The Wall Street Journal editorial page. Unless you count occasional outbursts of hand-wringing earnestness on the part of Bill Moyers or David Brancaccio on “Now,” it’s hard now to see anything resembling liberal excess on PBS, if there ever was such a thing."
- Of course radio attracts less enmity, without visuals it cannot have the impact of TV.
-The "war" is not over, it only being more effectively joined than ever. Instead of rolling over and playing dead to control freak facists, the people who support genuine freedom of speech slapped back, and must continue to do so because this particular battle never ends.
-One might suspect this little note is a low key first salvo in yet another attempt to silence one of the few remaining sources of honest journalism - somethig nearly non-existent at this point.
- "liberal excess" - bad joke and a complete absurdity. There is no liberal press nor journalism to speak of in this country - unless one counts Mother Jones. The reality is the Gingrichs of this country cannot stand the truth being told. PBS barely manages some of that truth telling, there is much more that simply is ignored. The assertion that such is to be found on cable, let alone elsewhere on the air reveals the extent of the success of ignorance.
"But by far the greatest advantage of public radio is that, by not trolling after ratings, it has managed to stay distinctive: it does what nothing else on radio does and sticks to its core: news and public affairs and the oddball weekly show like “Car Talk” and “A Prairie Home Companion.” At the same time, public radio thrives, in a way that public TV does not, from internal competition: in addition to NPR, the old standby, there is the newer, hipper PRI (Public Radio International), importer of the invaluable BBC World Service news program and distributor of innovative shows like “Studio 360 With Kurt Andersen” and “This American Life,” which NPR did not fight for."
- Some of this critique is deserved, if only because PBS has barely survived the republican assault by conceding and so mounting the junk designed to ultimately make the network irrelevant in precisely the manner the author of this article seeks to outline.
- At the same time, conveniently ignored are the efforts by individual - well supported stations to produce -both for local and national markets, more of the superior work that made PBS a leader in the areas of documentary and news journalism.
- The shows cited as top line work on NPR are not, were not and are not missed.
In sum, PBS is still the best stuff on TV in general.
Ed in Jackson Heights : Programming on PBS is the only guaranteed intelligent programming available in the great wasteland of commercial television. Who else will produce FRONTLINE, INDEPENDENT LENSE and GREAT PERFORMANCES? How many more mindless reality shows will the other stations produce and broadcast? Some of the more recent "game shows" are just pathetic excuses to celebrate greed and the dumbing down of the American public. The NY Times thinks Newshour and PBS are irrelevant? Perhaps the Times should look closer to home and see what the mirror reflects.
Oregonian : One line from the NYT article was "More typical prime-time fare — if you watch WNET, Channel 13, in New York, anyway ...."
Perhaps to New Yorkers it doesn't seem relevant, but what about those of us who don't live in big cities, don't subscribe to cable, and watch roughly as much public TV as commercial TV ?
Where else would we find something like NewsHour, Washington Week, and many of the investigative and arts programs?
And if I am not mistaken, Oregon Public Broadcasting makes some of the shows seen nationally.
The tone of the NYT piece was almost that of snobbery. Whoever wrote that should live out in the rest of the country in a smaller community and THEN try to make the argument that PBS isn't needed.
Donald Machen : If it were not for PBS & NPR, I would not watch/listen any tv/radio . The news and drama are excellent in contrast to the outright garbage being put out on other media.
Joanne : The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers Journal, NOW on PBS, Washington Week, Nevada Week in Review, Frontline and Frontline World: how can anyone exist without tuning into these programs?
rupesh97 : Can't live without NewsHour, Nova and Nature. Although I'd like NewsHour to improve in many ways, it is far and away better than any other dumbed down news show on broadcast or cable.
Victor : For many elderly persons like myself and my wife we are News Hour regulars. We apreciate the balanced reporting, bringing in representatives of various sides on contraversial issues. Perhaps the New York Times is less relevant! We don't see it, only hear quotations taken out of context, for which News Hour discussions are needed to understand.
Dan : Wuold the Times Be worried about one of the few remaining challengers to its core bussines. The other cable outlets (Msndc,Cnn,Fox) have become nothing more than ego/agenda driven entertainment shows of late. The News Hour and the BBC news on PBS are a welcome oasis from this drivel.
David J : David McGrath has every right to ask the question he posed in his recent NYT article. If you read the posted comments you can easily determine the overwhelming answer. You'll get that same answer if you ask if the NYT is still necessary.
Stan & Rosalie Yacknin : We both wholeheartedly support PBS with our money and our mouths! However "musty" some of their shows may be (a result, probably, of the continued cuts in federal support), it is probably one of the only places where you get full coverage of both sides of all the important issues facing this nation. (NPR is the other place.) We fully support our federal tax money being used to present a much-needed, nonprofit alternative to the biased, dumbed-down programming offered by commercial, for-profit networks such as Fox and its peers. (Incidentally, we don't watch Fox except for football!)
Long live PBS and its star attractions -- the News Hour, Washington Week In Review, Bill Moyer, Frontline, etc, etc, etc.
Joan Schumacher : I'm one of the people referred to in the article who has watched the News Hour consistently for the past 30 years, and depends on the in-depth coverage. Even though I read the newspaper, the News Hour has kept me better informed. My husband & I also watch Bill Moyers, and are honored by his dedication to truth and to our country. We have PBS to thank for both.
William P. Gloege : I disagree with this article which expresses that PBS is not worth much.
It is to me. Every week night I watch the Newshour. I feel it is much better than cable junk and most network news. I like the lack of silly graphics we see, especially on cable. Just the news. That's what I want!!
I look forward to Frontline and Nova and Nature. Most of my TV time is with PBS. So much junk on commercial TV. I'd gladly pay more taxes for more programs on PBS.
We badly need pure news now. Conservatives call anything give a side of the story they do not feel anyone should hear "liberal". That's their definition of "liberal" really.
Bob M. : There really is no competitor to PBS for reliable, thorough news coverage where multiple perspectives are sought and explored. The presentation is intelligent and thoughtful. While other media occasionally meet this standard, none does so with the regularity of PBS. It is an important contributor to public discourse in the country, and its impact is more extensive than the size of its audience would indicate. Go PBS!
eileen : Jim,
Your news program is one of the very few worth watching. You pick up important issues and provide the viewer to come to decisions on important questions thru seeing both sides of an issue. Other new casts provide pure entertainment of little public value.
Taube : As someone who has been unable to read for my entire adult life, I cannot imagine what that life would have been like without the "likes" of the "Newshour," and before that, "The McNeil/Lehrer Report," or to change media streams, NPR. Since I do not know the stance the Times article took, I can only tell you that my children were raised on the "Newshour," and when I told my daughter that someone questioned your worth, she asked me to put her two cents in on the side of the "Newshour" as well.
Only on the "Newshour" can I be assured of balanced reporting on the stories of the day, as well as other topics that need more in depth reporting, such as Paul S's occasional reports on "Finances," which I find can break even the most complex pieces of an International Puzzle into bite-sized morsels that even I can digest.
The reporters on the "Newshour" are my friends, and although I tape and watch other news programs at the week’s end, I'm always happy on Mondays to welcome Jim and Ray, Judy and Margaret, Jeff and Gwen, who I can't wait to see on Washington Week on Fridays, and, of course, the boys who come to chat on Fridays, as well—Shields and Brooks. These, and my apologies to those others I may have failed to name, are my friends. The New York Times has no call to try to take my good friends away from me...after all these years. I would be devastated!
The playing field is large enough for everyone. Just play fair, and don't go picking on a news anchor that doesn't even vote…because he doesn't want to be accused of "taking sides" in his reportage.
Gordon Lindbloom : I am a NY Times subscriber and a daily listener to NPR and the Lehrer News Hour. Both are essential to giving me well-balanced, in-depth new sources. Most private sector news is 2nd or 3rd rate, especially outside of New York, LA, and Washington. In many places it is trash, shallow, deeply biased. Sitting in New York, I think you forget that. Audible, high quality news and commentary also gives me access when I do not have time to sit and read which happens often. Radio news from NPR and television news from the Lehrer news hour are a life line for me. They will remain so.
Respectfully,
Gordon Lindbloom, Ph.D.
John Donald : I am a Canadian, born in 1968. I am one member of generation who grew up quite literally with PBS. Educational shows like Sesame Street not only helped teach me literacy and numeracy but showed me how people of different races could live together with puppets in harmony. Anyone with a sense of humour in my generation, learned their first jokes from Sesame Street.
My generation grew up in front of television, and, this may surprise many Americans, but because of this most Canadians first learned about American culture, history, and ideals before learning much about Canada, My heros as a boy were John Wayne and the heroic icons of WWII and Cowboy reruns. I admired a culture that celebrated the person who stood for what was right, even when he had to stand alone--like Cooper in High Noon. The hero had the strength to help those in need, the helpless, the downtrodden, and no matter how evil the bad guys were or how the bad guys cheated the hero never descended to using those methods. As I grew up I kept my admiration for the iconic American hero, and I found those heros in real life on PBS.
During the 1970's, I sat beside my parents and watched brave men and women night after night on PBS stand up with courage and heroism for "truth", for "justice", and for "the common good", I grew up seeing and believing that individuals can make a profound difference in the lives of others and, as a result, I wanted to make an important contribution when I grew up.
When I went through High School in the mid-1980's, I wondered what had happened to Canadian and American culture. Most of my classmates wanted to be rich, not make a difference. Somehow selfishness, covetousness, and greed had become virtues rather that vices. Somehow the iconic heros changed too. On television and in the movies, the so-called heros used the same methods--murder and torture--as the "bad guys". It had become difficult to tell the "good guys" from the "bad guys".
For a democracy, there are no more important "public institutions" that protect the common good than Public Education and a "free press". Democracy rests on the idea that citizens have a right to govern themselves and therefore need to be properly educated in order to exercise those freedoms responsibly. PBS has played an important role in both educating the public and being a bulkwark of the independent or "free press". Because PBS was paid for by the people, it answered to the people and was able to, and continues to, sponsor stories which get to the truth of controversial issues. Recent PBS programs like Nova's examination of "Intelligent Design", and Frontline's investigative journalism, have been both courageous and necessary. The nightly coverage by the NewsHour has been balanced and informative.
Perhaps, as never before in its history, the world is looking to the United States to reawaken its soul and its greatness. Franklin Roosevelt told Americans, and by extension the world, that "the only thing to fear is fear itself". He helped people stand up in dignity, defeated fascism, and established a world system that produced amazing peace and prosperity. Franklin Roosevelt saw the importance of the US as moral leader in the world and set up organizations like the United Nations. The same people who have been systematically destroying the middle class, which the New Deal built, are now focussed on getting rid of public education and public broadcasting.
Abraham Lincoln understood that democracy was a human experiment and that there were significant forces whose interests would be served through its destruction. It is my hope, that PBS endures, and that it continues to share what is great in American culture with the rest of the world. And it is my hope that public television, like democracy "shall not perish from this earth".
Mslola : KPBS is the only news channel I watch! I love Jim L. I watch Washingto Week and Now, the BBC news. How dare you watch such an article! KPBS represents the interest of the people. Without bias or big corporate influence. Keep your hands off my only source of true news and information on national and international issues and concerns.
From an angry American!
Russ : PBS is the ONLY source of objective news coverage on the air. ALL the other networks practice the news as entertainment model of news coverage which distorts and taints the coverage in order to gain ratings and sell advertising.
PBS is also the only network that tackles issues that other networks won't because they may lose market share.
The goal of entertainment tv is only to get people to watch. The goal of PBS is to inform and promote a better quality of programming. That is needed now even more than it ever was.
Ania : I'm 31 and I cannot imagine TV without PBS. PBS is the only station that I can watch and feel certain that I will not be subjected to mind-numbing garbage. I enjoy a variety of programs it offers, including Masterpiece, and numerous travel-related programs. Importantly, I rely on PBS for intelligent and drama-free news coverage – there is nothing else to match it on American TV. Finally, public television and radio are the few media outlets in this country that remind us that there are other countries and cultures in this world of which we are a part, but not the center.
Ann and Bob Beck : I can't imagin life without PBS. The only thing we watch in this house is PBS and football games. Most of the other news stations are owned by Murtock, so how independent can they be?
Fred, Mammoth Lakes, CA : PBS is to television as a well balanced meal is to your body. The rest of TV is all homogonized fast food, or McTelevision, thereby using the formula of "consistent mediocrity." Continued consumption of fast food is unhealthy and so is continued consumption of most TV.
If PBS did not exist would we have Nova, Frontline, the News Hour, or similar shows? I think not, as fewer and fewer large corporations gobble up more and more media outlets. Our ability to express our freedom of speech publically is slowly being bought from us. If Frontline won't take on an issue and show all sides of the story, who will?
The motive behind the proposed cuts is not economic effiency, after all PBS is one of those much touted "partnerships" with people donating when they don't have to, and what could be more efficient? More likely the motive is that PBS programming does not agree with the views of an increasingly wealthy, small minority of people and large corporations whose interests are not served by PBS. Has any other network revealed the secrets of corporations such as DeBeers, Walmart, and the advertising industry? PBS has and as the old saying goes "if you stand up you are going to get hit."
Mal Craig : The NY Times could not be more mistaken on this one. I, like millions of other Americans, do not have cable TV but instead relie on the broadcast networks. How rediculous to think that in this age of scaled back news coverage that we should actually advocate for less quality news programming. The News Hour is essential, in-depth, thoughtful news coverage -- as opposed to the vast wasteland of other broadcast reporting which we now have available in this country.
calguy : PBS should allocate a greater amount of resources to local community programming. Betweeen network, cable and internet content, world and national news is adequately covered, with foreign and domestic content providing balance. With the demise of the newspaper industry in many US markets, local coverage and participation by communities in their public media outlets is sorely lacking. All news is local, and communities that have a stake in creating their news will have a greater stake in fostering conditions that may be considered as positive. PBS should go local to a greater extent, with community involvement a focus.
Paul Mac : These guys all sing from the same songbook. In Canada a voracious media company uses much the same faux arguments to try to destroy the CBC (our PBS).They both miss the point that public institutions are about different things than a business model can encompass.
NYT should remember it's craven posture during the run-up to the Iraq war. It was largely PBS media who questioned the hype, rather than buying into it.
So, the evidence suggests that public media equals better journalism.
Pat Walsh : In the age of sound bites and "less is less", PBS is an oasis of tasteful programming and excellent journalism. It is so good to get an honest perspective of the different sides of a story. It is refreshing to hear honest to god journalist and not a bunch personalities more concerned with grabbing ratings rather than offering up good stories with an objective presentation. Long live PBS.
kmwood : No broadcast TV comes close to PBS programming. I gave up cable over a year ago. Except for a few shows I rarely miss it. When I watch TV it's mostly PBS. And the Newshour is the only TV news show worth watching.
Christine : All media becomes irrelevant when it succumbs to political pressure (Fox News is not relevant). I am a faithful PBS viewer and to express appreciation for the content and quality of their programming, am also a faithful contributor. Viewer support will keep programming relevant and bias at bay.
Erik Flatpick : I was unable to find a way to post a comment at the Times tonight, so instead posted a letter to the editors. Here's what i wrote:
I write in response to the Feb. 17 Times article by Charles McGrath, "Is PBS still necessary?" To put my answer as politely as I can: "Hell, yes!" Here are a few reasons why.
First off, I wonder if Mr. McGrath isn't missing a significant point when he suggests that only PBS is "subsidized." Wouldn't many of the networks/channels in any cable TV package see significant revenue drops if viewers had a la carte rights in what they subscribe to? As things stand, cable customers have no choice but to subscribe to--and thus subsidize--channels that, in a "free marketplace," they could refuse. Of course, lots of us don't have the spare cash to subscribe to cable at all. It's hard not to see cable as it presently works as a rigged business. And it's hard not to get the impression that Mr. McGrath works for them.
The best and almost the only place on U.S. television today to get consistently reliable reporting on important issues that affect our lives is PBS. News-wise, PBS is incomparably better than any of its alternatives, alone or in combination: in the intelligence and skills of its reporters and commentators and in the breadth, depth, integrity and courage of their reporting and analysis. The News Hour is at heart of this, but the lineup is strong and deep. None of the other PBS offerings duplicates what The News Hour provides, either: the Nightly Business Report, Washington Week, NOW, Bill Moyers' Journal, Frontline ... (I'll stop there.) There is no such combination of variety, quality and honesty in the news as it's delivered on any other network, or even across several networks--despite the billions of dollars that go into their programming. For these programs alone, the contributions that PBS makes to our democracy's health are inestimable. When we add in PBS's programming in the arts, artisanry, cooking and for children, the case only grows stronger. If Mr. McGrath is so impressed by BBC's science programming, he should start arguing for PBS to be funded at a larger fraction of the level (Ł4 billion-plus, annually) that the Beeb is funded at. Really good programming isn't something you can buy with high ratings and the advertising dollars they bring--or with the spare change of middle class donors.
To see what we will get if "our" government cuts PBS's funding further, spend some time watching Fox, MSNBC, CNN, CBS, Discovery, (well, if you're a biker you may like it), ... The consequences would perhaps be most dire in the news: we'd have nothing but channels where--at best--a few good people fight a losing battle against news as entertainment, biased opinion as news, egomaniacal "anchors," uncovered stories about important issues, pundits whose reputations depend on lying ever more outrageously, ... We have PLENTY of that crap right now, thanks to all the money that can be made with it. What we need is more programming of better quality--imaginative, varied, thought-provoking, eye-opening, mind-changing--entertaining in ways that wear well.
Glenn : PBS is critical to the perseverence of intelligent discourse in the USA, especially News Hour. Its hard to sustain more than a sound byte of conscious thought on broadcast and cable news programs due to incessant interruptions by advertisements for disfunction and incontinence drugs, insulting rants by loudmouth anchors and irrelevant pandoring to the vicarious for a life of celebrity. Sure, commercial news has its moments but its overwhelmingly brief, shallow, oversimplified and uninsightful coverage of world events that are shaping our lives today seem to fall far short. PBS budget fights seem to have reduced the frequency of seminal entertainment programs such as Prime Suspect and other that we used to enjoy. We need PBS. Don't let it pass. Write your congressman and senator!
Walt Thorp : The News Hour is the only TV news I watch. Not because it is perfect, but because it is far better than any other TV news.
I'm concerned about the increasing commercialization on PBS. It's one thing for a program to be "brought to you by..., but I recently heard a complete commercial for Huggies.
My guess is that PBS is searching for ways to deal with changes all media is facing.
My hope is that it will remain true to the original intent of "alternative" programing.
Debby Bright : I can't imagine having TV programming without Jim Lehrer's News Hour, Foreign Exchange, and Frontline. These are the best that PBS has to offer and they help shape our views about critical issues of the day. We never miss them. PBS is as relevant today as it ever has been and the need for its continued existence couldn't be greater. Thumbs up to PBS!
Michael Collins : I tune in daily to the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer for honest professional reporting. If I'm in my car I catch the News Hour on NPR. I can't imagine turning on the TV without PBS. It is very clear to me that Charles McGrath never really watches PBS. I'm not sure he even watches cable. Yes, there are "countless more channels" but nothing worth watching. Since cable programing is so great perhaps Mr. McGrath will pay for a monthly HBO and Showtime connection for me. You think?
karla zamiska : As a low income disabled citizen I don't have cable.
Of what is available to me in news, Oregon Public Broadcasting is outstanding. Yes, I do watch other national news. But they don't host all the government officials and experts, frequently with conficting opinions such as the News Hours does or
give an hours view on a given topic as does Frontline and other programs.
I find it particularly fair that the government does support public broadcasting since this ensures that in a democracy all citizens with a TV and that's most of us, have access to in depth coverage...that we can view government officals from many agencies discuss important topics and get multiple view points on current events.
Georgia in MA : PBS has and continues to be a mainstay of my news viewing and intellectual life. I have introduced my grandchildren to it and a number of highschool students that I tutor. I agree that the intrusion of advertisement, and the self congratulizations of Foundations AND the names of their patrons is annoying but where else would we go for quality information, opinion (marked as opinion),and entertainment? Our culture is being sold out to the 18-25yr. old market, who have not yet learned to think. Where will they learn? From the pages of the New York Times--Is this article a bid to raise their relavency?
William : PBS Newshour is nececcessary because the majority of mainstream news is corporate crap.You need not look no further than the Los Angeles Times, to see the demise of a once reputable news organization.Corporate media answers to their shareholders, not the public.The New York Times readers,journalists and editors should know that an attack on PBS is akin to an attack on the canary in the coal mine.
Tom Langley : I used to be surprised by such moronic comments or "observations" about PBS but with the "dumbing down of America" very alive and well, these things are becoming the norm. I am surprised though to read this in the New York Times but then again this long-term dumbing down is permeating every aspect of our society. Charles McGrath has apparently become a victim of this operation which was one of seven "covert" operations established in the first twenty year strategic plan of the Tri-Lateral Commission founded in 1971 by President H.W. Bush and one of the Rockefellers whose name I forget at the moment. One can easily see the Republicans continuing this policy by their consistent attempts to de-fund PBS. The Republicans worst enemy is the truth and PBS has consistently presented the naked, unbiased truth in all of their news and science programs. Sadly, these "evil-doers" have succeeded at forcing PBS to use means to stay funded, ie, quasi-commercials and longer pledge periods, that they do only as a last resort. The solution is easy - double, triple, quadruple the government funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and throw the Republicans off the board! Now that George Bush's tyranny has awakened the sleeping masses and Democrats are looking at a landslide victory across the board come November, we the people can resurrect PBS back to the prime status it deserves. The truth never goes out of style, it just gets covered up by the Republican Party. By the way, my favorite shows on television today are "The News Hour", "Nova", "Nature", Masterpiece", "Bill Moyers", and "Now". I prefer my television honest, insightful, and truly entertaining. Keep up the great work of reporting the truth Jim!
terry regan : PBS offers the only place where we can receive fair, unbiased and civilized commentary on our country and those with which need and must interact.
Sharon S : PBS is the ONLY place on television to get intelligent, well-rounded reporting, often on topics or issues not covered elsewhere. The News Hour and Washington Week we watch faithfully and would be as lost without as we would be without the NY Times which we also read daily.
Kathy and Phil : We are big fans of PBS and rarely watch any other programming other than PBS. We watch the Newshour nightly and believe it to be the best news program on television. The reports are well balanced with intelligent and stimulating discussion. We are very disapointed to learn that government funding for PBS is to be cut.
Doug Paris : Little did I think that I would become a devoted addict to Newshour and other enlightening programs of a like nature when I retired to Central Oregon a few years back. I, like many, had grown accustomed to the vast array of news programs on network and cable/satellite in the Bay Area (San Francisco) where I was born and raised and practiced criminal and family law for three decades. How shocked I was when I reached Central Oregon to find that I could only have access to New York or Los Angeles broadcast stations (at a fee), along with local inane ramblings about meth heads, fishing and political feuding of the local variety that was reminiscent of Maybury RFD. I had been a card carrying member of Public Television/Radio for year and enjoyed the variety of shows that had enlightened the audiences with insight and opinion, but sadly watched the quality diminish as the funding from our all insightful government began to dry up. Sure we can still look to CNN and MSNBC, but they too have declined perceptibly recently in the quest for more money and dumbed down viewers. In a world where there is a niche for Billy Graham, Ron Paul, Russ Limbaugh, Alfred E. Neuman, etc, please leave PBS alone and let those of us who desire to keep up with current events via PBS and NPR enjoy being spoken to rather than being lectured to by those who desire to speak to the lowest common denominator. Maybe if the current administration used some of the funds it has squandered on it's misguided foreign policy throughout the world, we would not have to choose between a stretched and weakened Public Broadcasting System and killing nationals of foreign nations in order to bring American Democracy to others.
Will Sharpe, 24, Austin, TX : Where to begin? I was honestly frightened when I heard Jim Lehrer mention the NY Times article at the beginning of tonight's broadcast. I fast-forwarded the program to the end and rushed to the computer to read the article. I was abhorred by what I read in the article, but moved by the massive public outcry in response. I cannot even begin to express the magnitude PBS/NPR has played in shaping my ideas and thoughts about the world I live in. When I hear something so meaningful to me reduced to one, core subjective question ("What if the glory days of public television — the days of “Monty Python,” “Upstairs Downstairs,” “The French Chef” — are past recapturing?) I then understand that the author of the article has little understanding of the persisting, overarching value public broadcasting possesses. Seeing as how my mother worked for KLRU here in Austin for nearly a decade, I do understand the wide variety of programing offered--and, no, not just entertaining reruns of "The Office" (BBC version). Entertaining being the key word there Mr. McGrath since you fail to understand the importance of not only keeping public broadcasting afloat, but thriving. Let's think of what PBS/NPR has done outside of McGrath's mentionings--namely the contributions of local PBS affiliates such as KLRU and radio stations in Chicago and Wisconsin among many others. First, here in Austin, there's a little something called "Austin City Limits"; in Chicago we have "This American Life"; in Wisconsin "To The Best Of Our Knowledge", and on and on and on... What I'm trying to say is simply this: public broadcasting is one of the few government entities I'm proud to pay my taxes toward. It is truly a democratic institution servicing all ages and citizens of the country. Regarding the article and my inital fear upon hearing about it, I recall the words of some President far superior to our current one who said, "There is nothing to fear, but fear itself." Oh yeah, one more thing, it's hard to fear someone who would try to legitimize his argument with this kind of statement, "The Showtime series “The Tudors” is just the kind of thing — only better produced and with more nudity — that used to make “Masterpiece Theater” ... so unmissable." Just what PBS needs! MORE NUDITY! God bless.
Keith : My wife and I are both news junkies. We watch all the networks, occasionally even faux, then turn to the newshour to get it all un-spun. Who else could do it?
Alan : I agree that the radio service is much more valuable than the TV service. I find radio to be a much more powerful medium than TV. I think that the "News Hour" does bring something that the radio can't offer. It must be the visuals. However, most of the News Hour is stuff that would be just as good on radio. Given a choice, I'd vote for radio over TV...
geri hall : Do we need the Constitution? Do we need the Bill of Rights? Do we want freedom of expression? Do we need the Jim Lehrer News Hour? I vote yes! I wonder if the NYT is afraid of losing its readers to PBS?
Chad : PBS provides the most balanced non-sensationalistic news available, the most intellectually stimulating programming that is not continually interrupted with snake oil ads or consumeristic gimmicks, and the most family friendly programming.
Our family’s household does not have cable, particularly due to the presence of PBS and the variety of quality programming it has to offer.
It’s ironic how the flow of money has depreciated the value of quality broadcasting outside PBS. There will always be a place for PBS in our world, and that’s as a real viewing option for the intellectually starved viewers who are tired of being fed consumeristic silliness.
PBS is literally in a class by itself.
Alice J. : I agree with all the other comments already posted. PBS is so relevant that I wouldn't have anything to watch if it weren't available. Many viewers haven't mentioned the children's programs on PBS. Without those, there would be nothing educationally suitable for children to watch.
Linda : I am very pessimistic about the future of the US and its populace: uninformed and politically illiterate. One of the few positive forces is NPB/NPR and its news coverage and analysis. Thoughtful, balanced analysis vs. the infotainment arm of the commercial networks. Frontline and the Haditha story is on now; I can hardly stand to watch, but I know I must. And no one else is covering this issue as honestly and courageously.
Wm & C. T. : The NY Times editorial of February 17, 2008 regarding the relevancy of PBS television broadcasting is cause for great concern. The necessity for “public” television to have advertisements due to reduction in federal funding is just heart rending. The policy of reduced spending on public television is worthy of revulsion in the same sense as the many other policy issues this administration has promulgated for the past 7 plus years under Bush 43.
We feel that cable TV is so over priced that we subscribe only to the basic 15 channels for under $8 per month. This price includes two PBS channels. We find that the programming on these two channels is so engaging and complete that there is hardly a need to watch anything else. Who needs to watch endless episodes of inane programming such as Survivor or CSI or Cops? Every time we turn on Nova or Nature, we are captivated by the subject matter. (Tonight Nova was exploring the reason the Great Apes, who show many human characteristics and thought patterns, have not made the leap to full human-like intelligence.) And why not get in-depth examinations of news issues rather than 3 minute brush-offs of significant news or trends. Unusual programs such as “Prime Minister’s Questions” (fascinating to have watched Tony Blair, a genius, in action but less so Gordon Brown), BBC news, travel programs, railroad journeys etc as well as the many musical shows all are immensely entertaining and obviate the need to forward excessive amounts of money to undeserving cable companies.
The unconscionable constriction of federal funding for PBS is yet one more example of mismanagement of the country by the current administration. One can only hope this trend will reverse when the Rs are turned out of office and progressive government takes over again in 2009. We still think PBS is relevant and very worthwhile watching.
ej : The only complaint I have with the NewsHour is that they don't broadcast on the weekends. Compared to other TV news programs, online or print newspapers and other news periodicals, the NewsHour provides perhaps the most concise, unbiased reporting and analysis of the news. Their diligent efforts to provide opposing points of view is invaluable. I'm somewhat embarrassed to say that I get excited whenever I see Shields & Brooks, especially when not on their usual Friday slot.
geri hall : I was astonished to hear Jim Lehrer announce that there is a debate about whether we need PBS. Do we need the Bill of Rights? Do we need the Constitution? Without PBS our freedom of speech will disappear, as it almost has at present. I wonder if the New York Times is afraid it will lose its readership to PBS and the Newshour.
Al : The News hour is the most balanced news broadcast program I and my family watch. Thr NY Times should be objective with their coverage of The News Hour, not critical. When most news coverage has sunk to opinion TV, PBS keeps rising to a new heighth of objectivity and excellence. All issues are timely and are presented with representives from both dsides of the issue. Who else does this? I haven't found it.
Lois Jeffrey, Bend, Oregon : The writer of the article yearns for a yesteryear of British imports on PBS, and then calls the Newshour and Nova "musty". Hogwash. The Newshour has the most intelligent and interesting public and foreign policy discussions on television led by able and informed
moderators. The Nova piece tonight on the Apes and Man is unique as far as I know;hasn't appeared on cable. As for Masterpiece Theatre, there is a Jane Austin craze at present (the number of movies based on her works, for example), so they are just delivering a superior adapted Jane Austin product. I guess the writer doesn't care for Jane Austin and Missed "Prime Suspect." Probably too musty for him.
The President may not watch Public Television, but he should(the NewsHour has covered his Africa trip more than other channels), and Congress should continue the funding as in the recent past.
Lorraine Phillips : When people ask me why I don't have cable, I tell them because no one should pay for television - they should pay us for watching it! But as I thought about it, I realized how much I depended on my PBS station and now I send them money every month (much less than I would have to pay for cable) but as much as I can afford. Your article stated that the average PSB show scores about what 'Friday Night Smackdown" gets - so where's the call from you to do away with that program? Or do you find such entertainment more to your liking? The article goes on - 40 years ago..there were only 3 networks, none known for challenging or high-minded programming. Well, now we have over 200 channels and everytime I discuss watching TV with my friends (who are paying big bucks for those channels) I find they watch the same shows I do. No, maybe public TV won't get more well-deserved money, but that doesn't stop them from presenting topnotch programming. I think you should be sentenced to one solid month of Fox TV. I'll buy the beer!
Louise in Alaska : Why is the assumption made that all TV viewers are also subscribers to cable television? We rely on PBS for all those programs unavailable on commercial TV. And why does a strengthening NPR necessitate a diminution of PBS? When I turn off the radio, get out of my car, enter my home, take off my coat and turn Jim Lehrer on to continue the aural connection with news analysis, it is just seamless. The idea of removing my friends from my circle -- Charlie, Gwen, Bill Moyers, Will Lehman
(Frontline narrator), and others -- how dare The New York Times. Just who do they think they are, minions for their advertisers, perhaps?
A Mom with Small Children : I found out about this debate at the end of the Jim Leher's show and said that I need to voice my opinion even though my lifestyle doesn't allow me to sometimes. PBS is the only TV channel that I allow my kids to watch without worrying about what might come on during one of the commercial breaks. Also, it gives me a balanced view of all that is happening in the world, especially in the partisan world of politics. I watch CNN occasionally when I am following the outcome of the recent primary but I really need to tune out the commercials in order to get substance from the news. If you do that too often, you will get tuned out too. Now, we are a family with TIVO, can you imagine another family without the use of a TIVO to do this with your precious time? I am not saying CNN is not good, I am using CNN as a comparison for all network channels, such as NBS, CBS...etc.
Belal : PBS is the only media outlet that I can still trust. I know by watching a PBS program, I will be getting honest objective reporting that has sadly disapeared or never showed up in main stream media. PBS is the channel for educated Americans.
Charles : Let's not shoot the messenger - The Times article was well-written and addressed topics we should be aware of and think about in terms of their impact. We clearly need more money for the PBS (TV) effort; the $64M question is, of course, how do we get that?
Hubert Pauls : I lived and worked in three different European countries for American and local companies. During those 35 years I was able to watch uninterrupted the state financed news, cultural and entertainment programs.
We returned to the US in 1994 and found that only PBS had programming that was informative, culturally motivating and provided a full news hour with contrary opinions voiced instead of the intermittent sound bits of the commercial media.
I learned more about our and world history on PBS than I learned at my university. I was shown the how the actions of corporations and politicians have adversely affected our lives, health and welfare. Small wonder that the present administration and its favored business community would like to see PBS disappear. It is uncomfortable for them to have the obverse side of their conduct revealed.
PBS provides our country’s citizens with the relevant facts to better understand the issues and make intelligent decisions. The commercial media is more interested in ratings and advertising revenues. PBS cuts through the bombardment of miss-information that is fed us.
If PBS were to be silenced, so would our consciousness of the true world around us.
Hubert Pauls
Dammeron Valley, Utah
Jim I : This is an excellent debate to be having as it serves to confirm why PBS/NPR are so vital and important--flaws and all. Considering what is offered on screen and online the value is obvious and for the taking by EVERYONE. Perhaps a Newshour wing in the Smithsonian? The one next to remnants of early NPR.
Ron : PBS is more necessary now than ever. When most media outlets are controlled and censored by corporate america; an independent news outlet like PBS is our only means of unbiased reporting. Programs like The News Hour, Frontline, Now, and Bill Moyer's Journal present relevent, factual, and informative journalism that is greatly needed. Especially, in todays Brittany Spears cultural environment. If anything is not needed, it is the meaningless infotainment of the mainstream media designed to perpetuate the dumbing-down of America.
marian naretto : My husband and I live overseas in the RMI. We watch the Newshour daily as it is the only news program that presents balanced viewpoints on the issues of the day. Long live PBS!
Leslie : I couldn't post on the NYT site, so I will post here in the hopes that you send them along to the NYT. PBS no longer has a monopoly on quality programming, much can be found on cable. But millions of people don't have cable. For those people, it is the only source of quality programming. I have cable, but pbs is my stand-by - news hour, washington week in review, masterpiece, frontline, nature, nova, spark - all are incredibly good.
And to the best of my knowledge none of the networks have quality children's programming that comes close to PBS.
Pennies to pbs is a good public investment.
Randal : Of the many things funded by taxes, I would put PBS above almost everything the Bush Administration wishes to spend our money on. PBS is the only service that respects the intellect of the viewer and does not shout the news. Maybe pictures of our dead soldiers upsets the peace of mind of Republican self-servatives.
Paul Bachman : Taking funds away from Public Broadcasting is just another attempt to show how government programs don't work or serve the public when underfunded or run by incompetent directors. The News Hour is the only place that I can rely on for unbiased, in depth reporting. And I second the comments by other viewers for the list of essential, thought provoking programs on PBS. Sorry to hear that New York doesn't have the same quality of programming that we have on Oregon Public Broadcasting.
Dennis : In a previous post I neglected to mention all of the very high quality documentary and investigative journalism programming PBS broadcasts. The PBS network is the single best source of this type of programming in television. Who would fill the void if shows like Frontline, Nature, Nova, Moyers Journal, and numerous specials were gone?
Helen Straka : Anyone who would think that PBS programs are irrelevant must be intellectually challenged. On the contrary, PBS programs are food for the soul and the intellect. It is the commercial TV programs that, for the most part, are trash and not worth my time to watch them!
Robert S. Campbell : PBS News and the Network is quite simply, the strongest, most objective and accurate in our Society. All television should emulate PBS news, drama, music and theater, but none do. The News Hour is a national treasure, without which we would be culturally and intellectually bankrupt. It would be the end of civilization as this Democracy has come to know it absent PBS and the News Hour.
Cynthia : What would we do without the trustworthy news and public awareness programming on PBS? The BBC World News, Nightly Business Report, NewsHour, Charlie Rose, Frontline, Nova. These are the staples of our T.V. watching. As my husband said, 75% of what we watch is on PBS. Then, of course, there is the wonderful children's programming. At 67, why am I entranced by Place of Our Own? Probably because it is such an informative and well-produced program and so is of interest to even a post-parent, pre-grandparent such as myself. I am aware of little on commercial T.V. of the quality of PBS shows no matter how many channels one may subscribe to. For my money (yes, I am a contributer) PBS has got it right most of the time. In these difficult and complex times we need your intelligent, non-biased coverage. Thank you, PBS
Lyle Miller : I watch very little TV and what I watch is usually news. I have found that Jim Lehrer's 'the newshour' is by far the best and most unbiased news program on TV and it would be sorely missed if some misguided bureaucrat were to axe it. Just contrast the tone of the 'newshour' to that of Newt Gingrich and my point is well taken.
Robert S. Campbell : PBS News and the Network is quite simply, the strongest, most objective and accurate in our Society. All television should emulate PBS news, drama, music and theater, but none do. The News Hour is a national treasure, without which we would be culturally and intellectually bankrupt. It would be the end of civilization as this Democracy has come to know it absent PBS and the News Hour.
Richard : I live in a semi-isolated small town in Alaska. I have been a faithful viewer of the MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour since Walter Cronkite retired. Without the Newshour, the only news that would make sense would be John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. Nothing, but nothing, on any network or cable TV channel, comes close to comparing with Bill Moyer's Journal.
Chaya : I could not disagree with the New York Times more than I do right now. In my opinion, PBS is more relevant, important, and valued now than the New York Times for me - ever! I don’t buy the Times, but I do support PBS. Without shows like Frontline, Now, the News Hour, Nova, or NPR … I don’t know where I would get my information. I thank G-d that PBS exists. There is no other place for me to go to receive quality info about topics ranging from the Arts, Science, History, Current News, or even comedy. PBS has given me, someone who can’t afford to get a “traditional education”, the ability to learn & broaden my horizons. Thank you PBS! And tell the Times to shove-it.
Kit : I have had a regular dinner hour appointment with the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer for many, many years. It is very nearly the only TV program I ever watch, and by now all of you seem like family. I am proud of your integrity, depth, and balance.
Dr. Dan C. Williamson : Jim Lehrer and his news team are some of the best in the journalism business. I idea of cutting and other programs like the American Experience, Lives of African Americans (recent) and Nova is yet another example of why America desperately needs to have a serious discussion about public goods and their public maintenance. Otherwise, PBS might go down the tubes just as education regularly does in California when there is a budget crisis. The first thing from any governator's lips here when a budget crisis looms is "cut education" and programs for the neediest members of our communities. This is not acceptable anymore than the lack of affordable and accessible health care. Instead, current government coddles big business and gives corporate right offs who then pay lip-service by donating some small amount of change as a single payment to education or the like, not nearly enough to equal out to the enormous cumulative cuts education--like public broadcasting--have endured over the years. Perhaps PBS could trim a few of the frumpier English sitcoms in favor of new socially aware programs that focus on American families and their interests. How about a new film noir series of American detective stories on the level of those now celebrated series on Mystery!: Hercule Poirot, Sherlock Holmes and Miss Marple (both versions)? Ah, but of course, Money. And imagine if the News Hour had more money for more expanded coverage and perhaps something like a magazine to rival 60 Minutes. Hmmm... More children's programming? The list could go on and all of it would be worthwhile judging by past standards. One final word. What goes missing is that PBS unlike other cable venues is public access and therefore even if one has cable it can be had along with other local channels at a pittance of the fees for expanded cable programming, thus making it accessible to families that might not be able to afford the expensive stuff, including old favorite movies on a Saturday night. That's called a public good.
Phil and Marge Curtiss : We echo the sentiments already expressed in this forum. We watch PBS almost exclusively over RMPBS and KBDI from Denver. We are glad to contribute to these two fine stations annually as well as to our local NPR station, KUNC, Greeley, CO. We, like others, would probably sell our TV sets if PBS and its fine programming (especially The Newshour, Great Performances, American Experience, Nova) were to go away.
iriscana : As a result of a modest sum of money from the gov't as well as from its listeners, we Americans (many but not all of us) are given our only chance to receive independent, balanced, reasoned, informative, refeshingly "grown-up" progamming dealing with such "relevant" matters as health care, global warming, housing crisis, our military, etc. And as if that were not enough, we are offered these programs with respect and class.
PBS, I hope you grow and make your voice heard in many more communities in America.
Casey : Wait a minute! The Times article is not what is at fault here. The Times article, as I interpret it, is telling us that George W. Bush wants to slash the PBS funds, along with Republicans who deem public television out of line with corporate enterprise. The article also said that Newt Gingrich first pushed the idea that PBS was too liberal, and felt it shouldn't be government funded in any way. Isn't this the jist of this article? Bringing the funding issue, soon to be determined by the president and congress, to public attention? Have those commenting here read the article, I wonder? My feeling is that PBS programming is the only reliable, up-front, honest news out there. I don't see anything on CNN that I would like to view regularly, Cnn is hectic, disjointed, repetitive, stylish-perfectly-made-up women with little-girl voices and no maturity. Whereas, the PBS news programs never get stale,they are relevant: Lehrer, Frontline, Now, and Bill Moyers always have riveting commentary. I learn from PBS. I get caught up in the events. It peals back the veil that sometimes hides the truth and gives us the honest picture. It grabs me. Aside from C-Span, it is the only REAL commentary on our times. I am not surprised that Bush feels like PBS could stand a 50% cut in funds, because he has so little curiosity, vision, or feeling for history. Somehow, I doubt you will print this.
Jean Lee : PBS has a balanced programming of arts, reasonable sitcoms, Bill Moyers discussion and information, investigative journalism, in addition to good nature programs. It is such a good station. It is far more relevant than commercial television. The absence of soundbites is refreshing.
Roberta Streicher : What would people like me, an almost 80 year old woman, who rely on PBS evening news for whatever truth we can still get from the media? I stopped believing what I read in the newspapers and on the local news programs years ago and PBS is what I wait for each evening. Thanks for the opportunity to thank PBS evening news.
Dennis : The News Hour is easily the highest quality, most even-handed, impartial, in-depth, general news program available. We need much more programming like it, not less. Losing the News Hour would be a victory for the mindless ignorance that already permeates our culture and politics.
Jones : If my husband wasn't a Redskins fan, we would watch nothing but PBS. The Newshour, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, Nova, Frontline, American Experience: there is nothing comparable in quality on commercial TV, or even on Cable. Keep up the good work.
Caleb Cane : Just another of the many manifestations of the ever further dumbing down of the great American dope (who gets to vote!!! Pompous media pundits routinely complain about Americans not voting. I cheer. Who wants the input/influence coming from these idiots?)
In the last 30 years the cynical, greedy business interests have learned how to manipulate the federal government, by means of manipulating the American voting dopes. In the form of direct money (bribes), they run a "carrot and stick" "motivation" on "our" elected legislators, who know how to toady up on cue. They'd have us believe this bribery is "freedom of speech"! What a cruel, cynical joke! And, it is true, that our vaunted congress people desperately (they gladly sell their souls) hang on to their cushy jobs, better jobs they'd never otherwise find.
Private, selfish, unAmerican interests have much more influence in the day-by-day function of "the people's business" than do the people themselves. Of course, these hyenas go after anything they think they can take down. If you are surprised at this example - attacking PBS, by far the best thing in broadcasting, then you haven't been paying attention to their serpentine activities - maybe you've put your head in the know nothing sand? The Devil's abroad in the land.
You may stop this particular assault, but then they'd be back, in a year or two or more - the interval doesn't really matter. As the general dumbness grows, time is on the side of evil business interests, since a life of "eternal vigilance" apparently doesn't appeal to enough of us.
We all see the great American dream slip-sliding away and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it. Everyone is paralyzed for one reason or another. CC
Mona : Here are the comments I sent the NY Times -
The Editors of the New York Times
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Dear Sirs;
In an article in your paper this Feb 17, 2008 by Charles McGrath, the relevance of PBS was questioned. It was implied that the programming was stodgy, cheaply done, and irrelevant.
The article goes on to recount the attack by Newt Gingrich on PBS to “punish” it for its “liberal bias”, and states that “These days the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is run by Republicans…”. It apparently has not occurred to Mr. McGrath that cutting the budget of PBS and having it run by Republicans are the cause of shortcomings he decries.
Contrary to Mr. McGrath’s apparent proposal to get rid of PBS, I would suggest increasing its budget and getting rid of the Republicans in charge.
MY lament is that the only news program I can trust is The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. It is, thank goodness, devoid of celebrity gossip, promos for “reality” shows and other spurious hiss.
How important is PBS to me? I make less that $10,000 a year, and give $100 to PBS.
Sincerely,
Mona Claycomb
Loveland, CO
James : I've been watching PBS for many years and I always anticipated that the Republicans wouldn't want it around. Most of them are not bookish enough to appreciate the news analysis, nor would they be independent enough to break away from their ideology and appreciate a perspective different from their own. My personal opinion is that the Newshour can't be beat. I was surprised when Gigot snickered about Bush's tactics to steal the election in 2000. I was relieved to see him replaced by David Brooks who obviously has a sence of justice and fair play. To my mind, that's when the Bush clan declared war against PBS. I don't think they'll give up until it's an American dictatorship and the big corporations run it in total. They need an enemy they can dominate. What better target than PBS.
Emily : Corporations have taken over enough in this country. They don't want thoughtful, informed citizens. We need PBS and it's more independent programs, especially the Lehrer News Hour and Bill Moyers. I can breathe when I listen to the News Hour. I am choked and stifled when I try to hear network or commercial news. It sickens me.
Mark : A comparison of The News Hour with network or cable news is instructive. Too much "entertainment-as-news" embedded in the latter. Lower ratings for PBS say more about the state of the American mind than about PBS. This same trend could also lead some to ask whether the New York Times is "relevant." The answer, in both cases, is "Yes." I am less enamored of public radio, owing to what I see as its more politicized outlook.
Helen O'Hea : There is no news on the commercial channels,,,I have been able to see both sides of issues because of Lehrer and Moyers...CHANNEL 13 IS UPLIFTING AND EDUCATIONAL...I NEED IT AS MUCH AS THE TIMES.
Justen Ladda : Fact is, commercial television exists to deliver potential consumers to their advertisers. Public television is about programs for their own sake.
I think PBS is absolutely necessary.
surafel.Kebede : It is important to keep PBS's News Hour.It is not in the left or in the right it is in the center.We are getting very good coverage of the news unlike the main stream media which only covers the side they chose to cover.What is wrong with America, I am sick and tired of hearing news media analysts taking words out of context and reporting it in a negative way.An example is that of the word that Michelle Obama used "For the first time in my Adult",in my opinion she did not say it in a negative way but the political pundits and the desperate Clinton machines are trying to make a gain out of that text.It is such a shame.I like PBS News Hour for giving us unbaised news and i think it should stay on the air.Change is coming and get used to it.
brook : I strongly support PBS. It would be a sad day if PBS, in it's current format, was not on the air. For example, there is simply no comparison between Cable News and PBS News broadcasts. Although I may watch cable and other networks from time to time, I do so only for the 'carnival' effect. PBS is still first-class in educational, entertainment and informational programming. I trust PBS and hope it will be around for a very long time.
Clarissa : PBS is the only channel I ever watch. Its programs are of the highest quality and interest. Drama, documentaries, news, interviews. Bill Moyers, Charlie Rose, The Jim Lehrer News Hour, Masterpiece Theatre, Mystery, are excellent and I wish more people watched them. The same goes for PBS radio. it wakes me up in the morning and is with me in the car. As far as I am concerned the other channels are horribly bad and cater to the lowest intellects and tastes.
Sharlene : The one thing to thank the NY Times for is alerting us that GW & company are again trying to sabotoge the best things in America. Otherwise, the editorial is ill-informed and rather biased. PBS and NPR are two of the best. No wonder those who only claim to believe in the American values want to shut down the only independent news channel, and subsitute what is either non-affordable or not available (Cable), or leave us in a commercial wasteland far bleaker than Newton Minnow envisioned. Certainly PBS could be improved with more money--so why is there any question about government support of television and radio for the people?
ep : The News Hour is like no other program on television. You bet it is necessary! Necessary to all those who want an intelligent, interesting and reliable look at the news each day. The reason NPR has such a good following is because it also supplies good information while you are commuting (endlessly) in your car. If the News Hour were off the air I would honestly be devastated!
Janet : I rely on PBS for my news with Jim Lehr, and for other informative programs like Nova, Frontline, Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, etc. Before I check any other listings, I see what is on PBS. In my opinion, only PBS is dependable for truly quality and relevant programing. This station truly cares about informing and elevating the public, while other stations care mostly about satisfying their
advertisers. The public is secondary at best in their mind. Without PBS, television in my opinion would for the most part not be worth having. If PBS is not relevant, than nothing is. The New York Times was measuring the term 'relevancy' according to ratings. This shows that the New York Times is falling prey to exactly what is worst in mass media. I expected more from the 'Times.' I daresay that the audiences for PBS and The New York Times, greatly overlap. Therefore, if PBS should go; so should The New York Times.
dave : Regular TV is easy to do without: if anything I wish there were more stations like PBS. I don't think any other station does as good of job at educating as PBS and it is really refreshing to have all of the viewing free of advertising. I also think the Jim Lehrer news hours is a superior news station over other news.
J bottom : Regarding the New York Times article: Hogwash. An original mandate of PBS was to provide educational programming that viewers could not find commercially. It is still fulfilling that mandate.
Susan Condon : I was horrified by the Times article. The author does not watch the PBS I watch! Jim Lehrer News Hour is the best source of news on TV. All the commercial news programs are ambulance chasers!! Charlie Rose, Bill Moyers, This Old House, Nova, Masterpiece are a few of my favorites. I don't watch any commercial stations except for the occasional college basketball game. The Times is all wrong! PBS keep up the good work!!
ann eldridge : What on earth are they thinking? That no one deserves or cares about thoughtful programing? That instead all we need are the poor excuses for news by the latest glamourous script reading robots --the more purulent the better! No thanks! I'll take the old "musty" programing any day and I may even learn something along the way.
LindaG : I'm appalled that this issue would even be raised -- of COURSE PBS is relevant, of COURSE the News Hour brings more intelligent unbiased news analysis than any three corporate networks can manage. We have neither cable nor satellite and as another commenter noted, if it weren't for PBS, we would have nothing to watch on television at all. It's clear that conservative corporate interests would like to get rid of the only independent commentator on the air -- we mustn't let it happen!
Jeff Douthwaite : It's great to see soo many who love pbs News hour.
'Tis one of the best offerings. Please keep it well. If it takes contributions from all of us, pls say so.
Sincerely,
Jeff & Marcia D in Seattle
amilius : I have never heard the Newshour devote time to the travails of any of the 'celebutantes' whose coverage sullies anything that resembles a reputation for information gathering on every other channel. they have only been referenced on Tavis Smiley and Charlie Rose, enough said. Even now, watching a Frontline episode on the tragic events at Haditha, the import of impartial and unbiased news program shines in resonance with the value of 'an informed electorate'.
And then there are the noble efforts of 'Bill Moyers Journal' and 'Now". These are true informative gems that stand in stark contrast to the shoddy paste frauds offered by the mainstream media.
Cherry Miloe : To me, watching The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is like reading the Christian Science Monitor. Every subject they both cover includes the culture, religion, needs and wants of the people, education, and perhaps climate. It is a thorough visit to each subject, as in a college course. One is given an understanding of the subject, without bias, so that you are truly informed. As the Monitor states as its purpose, "To injure no man, but to bless mankind." One might say they both wish to cause no harm to anyone, but to inform mankind.
As for the many other informative, interesting programs on PBS, my mind is filled with intrigue that is brought about through the science, nature, and cultural programs continuously aired on PBS. My children benefited from the shows they watched as small children on PBS. This continues for them today, when they watch as well-educated, well-adjusted adults. I rest my case on that! PBS helps us to help ourselves be more interesting for ourselves and for others!
hattiejo : We depend upon PBS for balanced programming and news reporting for the above-average viewing, from cultural presentations such as plays and concerts to unbiased news reporting and analyses. We simply could not do without PBS in our lifestyle. Commercial television has become downright filty, both in programming and, especially, in advertising. PLEASE keep PBS on the air! Thank you.
Leslie Purdy : Like so many of the other people who commented on the NYTimes article on the need for PBS, I am a strong supporter of Public Television and especially the NewsHour. While it's true that there are now more television viewing options than when PBS was first established, there are still no other sources of objective reporting of news and analysis of major world events. Commercial television has no motivation to produce in-depth informational and educational programming because the goal is financial profit, not public service. Furthermore, the article fails to mention at least two other important contributions of public television: educational television, for children and adults, and local programs and services which respond to unique local needs. We should remember that the PBS letters stand for Public Broadcasting Service, not Public Broadcasting Station. Rather than wasting time debating the existance of PBS, we should focus on helping PBS stations around the country expand their programming into new media and to offer the unique and very needed non-commercial information resources, free to everyone.
Joan Arnez : I chime in with similar comments to most that I read!!! How could the value of Lehrer, Moyers, NOW, NOVA, BBC News, Washington Week, This Week in No. Cal. (and oh, so much more to name) even be questioned?? Despite the fact that there is more commercial-type advertising that has popped up these days (as a necessary evil, methinks), I will take PBS over any other, any day, anytime!!! Without any quesion!!!
Crabby : For my money, PBS is one of only two TV stations worth watching; the other is CNN. I rely on PBS for quality news, unbiased event-reporting, AND NO COMMERCIALS. That in itself is worth its weight in gold!
I always watch THE NEWS HOUR every weekday night and, on Friday night, watch BILL MOYERS JOURNAL (that is a wonderful, courageous show) and WASHINGTON WEEK IN REVIEW (Gwen Ifill puts together a terrific program). PBS is the most relevant broadcast organization on the air and THE AIRWAVES BELONG TO THE PEOPLE, which is what PBS respects!
Thanks for the opportunity to make this comment.
Melodie Pickett : PBS and NPR are only worthwhile to individuals who are interested in getting a true picture of any given story. Ya'll are "fair and balanced" to borrow a phrase from a cable network which is neither. It is also ironic that the newspaper whose moniker is "all the news that is fit to print" has run such a scurrilous article about PBS and NPR!
As an empty nester whose daughters are in their twenties, I remember most nights hearing my younger daughter say, "Good Night, Jim" after The News Hours. That same daughter was upset when the music for the News Hour changed! She had been humming in for years and didn't care for the change. It isn't just the aging baby boomers who appreciate thoughtful, intelligent news coverage.
Furthermore, Washington Week has been a fixture in our family for MANY years as well. Gwen Ifill does a wonderful job. Although I must admit that Paul Duke was a fixture, and I missed him for a long time.
Through the years I have watched public television all over the country from the Deep South (Mississippi Educational Television - Channel 29 in Jackson, MS) to the DC area (WETA and Maryland Public Television stations)to Texas (KLRU - Austin, KERA - Dallas, and KUHT - Houston) and the Pacific Northwest (KCTS in Seattle). Without exception, the public broadcasting stations provided quality programming that was not available on the networks or on cable! Public radio has provided the same type of quality programming and isn't available via the commercial stations.
The folks that don't recognize the value of PBS and NPR simply aren't paying attention! Pay those people no attention. Those of us who are paying attention know better! Better still, invite them over to join you in watching or listening to an especially insightful program (of which there are many).
Keep up the good work! I'll be watching and listening with many other loyal fans of your work.
Joan Leaver : My TV screen would be dark most of the time if it were not for PBS. The News Hour With Jim Lehrer is an evening must. It offers a thoughtful, intelligent,unbiased discussion of important issues. A real help in forming intelligent opinions. Mo sound bites. No commercials.
Rudy : I believe that America has lost its academic standing in the world because large media companies have influenced us to indulge in immediate gratification and not think. The New York Times article illustrates the type of biased corporate news media that makes PBS essential. They mentioned very little of the informational programming that PBS provides on a national level. They also failed to mention the amount of effort PBS stations spend providing information about local art, history and culture. If you ask me the article was a bunch of fluff that talked down to the American people. If you are just interested in the antics of Paris Hilton and Britany Spears, the latest diet fads, watching infomercials and spending over 25% of your viewing time watching commercials, stick with the major media. If you want some substance in your television viewing time, watch PBS.
L. B. Ball : I read the article a few days ago. In a world where we are subjected to constant cell phones, the speaker always yelling, test messaging, etc. it is very reassuring to turn to KCET and always find something intellectually stimulating. KCET is the first station I look for in the daily listings. I could not do without it. Surely something must be left for those of us from another generation who still want to receive information on a PBS staion.
David Eliaser : Mr. McGrath questions the relevancy of PBS. Having been a long-time viewer, I think he has a point. I do not watch PBS nearly as much as I did 20 years ago.
However, one program that remains the best of its genre is the Newshour. It seems in his perceived need to criticize everyone of the programs, the worst thing he can mention about the Newshour was the age of the senior editor. Newshour remains vital, non-partisan, and provides the most in-depth coverage of national and world events found on televison.
Commercial television is incapable to putting on such a program. If we lose PBS one could only hope that CSPAN would allow a change in format, so it could take over this necessary program.
Jason Strauss : If it were not for PBS I might not have a television. The best national and international news with the best reporters and interviewers (The News Hour), The most informative educational scientific productions (NOVA), superb thought provoking documentries (Frontline), Ballroom Dancing, Masterpiece Theatre..... How much TV can you watch. I like to ride my bike and I try to ride 200 miles a week in the mountains, weather permitting. Life is too short for most of what is offered over the agony box and I prefer to spend my free time actively out of doors. I certainly have no time for the NY Times with the exception of the Sunday Times crossword puzzle that I will occasionally relax with when I am travelling.
K. Pearson : I am relieved to see all the positive comments on PBS. As a Canadian inundated with US television channels, documentaries like Frontline make my monthly cable bill seem all the more worthwhile. I think mainstream America is far more intelligent than some of the big commercial networks lead one to believe (and no, I am not anti-capitalist).
Leslie : I just finished watching the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and he mentioned the New York Times article. As a twenty year devotee of PBS, I was shocked to read the Charles McGrath article on his opinion of PBS's relavence. His ignorance of the shows was apparant. He obviously doesn't watch much. Bill Moyer's Journal gets my vote for the best insightful news and culture program on tv. I feel so much further ahead of my younger colleagues watching PBS. The News Hour provides more unbaised and thoughtful commentary than any of the market driven news programs. I know many of my friends and co-workers turn to the programs after my comments. There is no other TV programming offering the variety and intelligence of PBS. I will continue to fight for its funding and longevity.
Sybil : I cannot even imagine doing without PBS. The Lehrer News Hour is by far the best news program on the air. It has substance rather than just headlines or fluff. PBS is extremely important because it is the only independent voice in TV. There are also lots of great programs: American Experience, Masterpiece Theater, Frontline, Bill Moyers, Washington Week in Review, Now, and all the specials, etc.
N.Zipkin : i have to put my "two cents" in! Without the BBC news, and the Jim Lehrer News Hour, I would be hard pressed to get any news. The papers are hysterical, when I listen to radio, it is classical music, and I would miss the outstanding research and presentations Jim Lehrer puts together. PBS IS VERY relevant for me, and my family!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Judy Miller : Jim Lehrer's News Hour is the only regular TV program I watch. I value the interviews with people of different opinions, the lack of ads. I would truly feel robbed if it were no longer available.
gene volkerding : I am a devoted fan of public tv and make a small contribution annually. HOWEVER the Times article appears to have been well researched and exposes the danger therein. It needs to be examined by the public tv leadership to find the means to lure an audience from the competition. And, The situation now only encourages the foes of public television who will win unless the fans of public tv make them aware of the public support.
Marineda Usera : I have been a "fan" of Newshour for many, many years. I look forward every evening to watch a
a news program with informative views, intelligent discussions and interviews. This programs belongs on the air.
Dr. Kenneth Daponte : PBS should be honored and revered for its outstanding programming, especially its NEWS HOUR. It is the ONLY television that offers uplifting,intelligent and insightful viewing for those of us not interested in the dumbed-down,pap offered by commercial networks for the most part.
Lorrie : The News Hour offers news that can't be obtained through any other TV media. The discussions are intelligent, the interviews contain much more information than you can get on commercial news programs. The monotony of commercial news programs pushed us to watching only the News Hour. In fact, we only watch programs on PBS. Even programs on the Discovery Channel are too hyped and overdone.
GERALD GRANIGAN : How can our great president leave a positive legisy with Frontline Bill Moyers or Now around? Without PBS as a small counter weight,Corporate America will continue with everything is Great here.
Richard : The News Hour is a vital asset to our American society. Thanks for a thoughtful, incisive and truly balanced view of the American and World scene. That's all I have to say about that.
Charles Etheridge : The NewsHour is by far the most thorough and impartial News program on the air. I donate to Public Broadcasting during the NewsHour to show my support for it. Nowhere else can one see the in depth interviews with the caliber of guests that regularly appear on the show, and the online staff is always impressively informed. If there were a checkoff box on tax returns for money to support Public Broadcasting in general I would check it much sooner than I would the one for campaign support. I consider the NewsHour to be an essential national commodity that should be very proudly supported by all who wish to know the true meaning of World happenings as told from multiple viewpoints. In addition to the NewsHour PBS has, at least in the evenings the only programming that is worth watching. Almost everything that they have is in some way educational and mentally stimulating. Other than the occasional presentation by CNN or perhaps a bit of rare sports coverage, it is the only source of programming that is watched in our house, and we are very fortunate here in Atlanta to have two stations that carry PBS programming.
Richard J. Tafilaw : I truly love PBS and would be mortally wounded to have it taken off the air, however there is much to be said for Charles McGrath’s argument. Public Broadcasting has NOT moved into the 21st century, while everyone else has. Many programs that were only available on PBS 30 years ago are all over the dial today, just as well, if not better produced and presented. And, Bottom Line - The audience is fleeing!
WAKE UP! You can’t keep making slide rules when everyone’s buying digital calculators. Read the ratings, your plan ISN’T WORKING!
I love you Jim, you’ve had a magnificent run, but Goddamn it, it’s time to step aside and let someone like Chris Hardwick take over!
John Boyd : In this time of continued assault on thinking by corporate media there is no doubt PBS serves a valuable educational purpose. My only concern is an apparent preoccupation with an equal presentation of both sides. While it is often useful, there is a place for pointing out the truth. It shouldn't always be presented as our choice between two options. A little more of Bill Moyer's approach and courage would be appreciated. Even if I don't always agree.
James in NYC : Truth be told, the NewsHour is produced by a public, for-profit corporation, Liberty Media. This suggests that the pursuit of profit is a primary motive behind the program's production and distribution. There is nothing wrong with that - PBS obviously thinks its relationship with Liberty is mutually beneficial. However, if PBS did not exist, Liberty would likely seek other channels of distribution for the program, and would probably find them.
J. Potter (Harry's Great-Aunt) : Charles McGrath--
Are you kidding, Charles McGrath? Of course, NPR is wonderful. We listen to it quite, quite often, and as a matter of fact, the publisher of my new book is an underwriter of our most often-heard NPR station KRPS-Pittsburg, KA and Bartlesville, OK (heard also in SW MO) and we have long been members. We love "All Things Considered" and my publisher underwrites KRPS with spots on Mondays on Morning Edition.
But where on earth would we be without the Jim Lehrer News Hour for in-depth news? We certainly want that and NPR for real news. We love PBS dearly and will tune it in first before picking out any other channel or putting in a DVD. Sorry to disagree, but we are devoted to all the nature programs, and yes, we like Antique Roads Show, too. Lately, we have been snuggling down to all the most remarkable novels ever written presented on Masterpiece Theater as the Jane Austen Series. We like the Mysteries presented on PBS, too, Nova, Nature and in fund-raising, we like Andrew Dyer, Deepak Chopra, Great Performances and many, many others, which are so outstanding. We have been members of Ozarks Public Television for many, many years.
Okay. Do you live in New York City? I lived there, too, in third, fifth, sixth, seventh grades and the first half of my freshman year at Julia Richman. Our family read the New York Times avidly in those days. The old days.
But I do not live in Manhattan now. I live in the country on a river bluff near Carthage, in the SW corner of Missouri. Besides NPR and PBS, we tune in CNBC, Book TV and Arts. Sometimes I listen to BBC World Service on NPR.
Where would we be for in-depth news and culture without PBS, NPR, the "New Yorker" Magazine, wonderful for fiction, amazing nonfiction stories, personal history, cartoons and poetry, although I sometimes become incensed at its political stances, and "The Christian Science Monitor" in which I read in-depth stories about three or four weeks before they are breaking news stories on CNN, and the networks? I also subscribe to the "Atlantic Monthly" and my husband subscribes to "The Economist" and "The Wall Street Journal. Many others, too.
On PBS, we watch "The Nightly Business News" and "Charlie Rose almost every night.
There was a time when we were enjoying BBC America quite a bit, but now we seldom tune in. The programs we loved originally are gone, except Monday Night Mysteries.
We love watching the Olympics on regular TV, ice-skating and yes, the dance championships. This year, we even watched two or three football championships.
In the past, we watched Bravo, A and E, the Learning Channel, History and Discovery quite often, but we do not have cable. We are on a sattelite dish, and tuning in has become too much of a hassle for us.
As for the regular networks, we watch the 10 o'clock Evening News occaionally for local news, political contests, local weather, etc., but as a whole, the number of commercials simply drives us away. We do not have the patience for it and have not learned to like Reality TV. Occasionally, Oprah can be interesting, but it is not a regular habit in our home.
I am deeply sorry newspapers all over the U.S. are in such terrible trouble, but there is no point in taking cheap shots at other media.
I, too, agree with most of the responders, except Nicole's.
Without PBS and NPR, we would be living in a cultural wasteland.
Jim Lehrer and staff, NPR one and all, we love you and appreciate you.
J. Potter (Harry's Great-Aunt), Jasper County, Mo.
P.S. I forgot to add that we subscribe to two local newspapers, "The Joplin Globe" and "The Carthage Press" and that if we had the time to read it, we would love to subscribe to the fine "Kansas City Star". We subscribe to many other periodicals, also, such as art magazines and writer magazines, the "National Geographic" and "Nat. Geographic Traveler" and "Time" Magazine, a shadow of its former self. And of course, it's now "The Atlantic" instead of "The Atlantic Monthly" as it used to be.
Cathy : My TV is rarely on any non-PBS channel. Sacramento is fortunate to have 3 -- one, which I enjoy from time to time, in Spanish. I simply cannot tolerate the fear-mongering on network and cable news shows -- I feel assaulted every time I flip to CNN by mistake. In fact if PBS left the air, I'd probably get rid of my TVs. Musty, no. A MUST is more like it.
Sarah Narm : My husband and I watch the News Hour every evening-- and have for many years. We value this program (and others offered on pbs) for their impartial and extensive coverage of relevant events and ideas.
jc : PBS provides intelligent, indepth news from both perspectives. It's not sensationalistic and a thought is not constantly interrupted by 5 minutes of commercials. How can you think it's not relevant?
Jeff in Tucson : Almost every time I watch PBS, be it the NewsHour, Bill Moyers, or a cooking show, I'm struck by how good the programming is. PBS is a national treasure that we should be very proud of.
Dr. Charles M. Olsen : A new role for Public Television? After all the money and droning on of this election campaign, I would gladly see a six week presidential campaign limit and give all the air time for it on Public TV with an expanded News Hour 24 hours a day! Let interviews, discussions, and debates carry the day!
Ed Russ : At 80+ We have seen the decline in morals and content of commercial and cable TV. We don't watch much TV other than what is on PBS. Most of the reporting is unbiased and certainly the Newshour goes into much more depth than other "news" broadcasts. Because of the way programs in our area are scheduled we are able to watch a segment of the local news and the broadbrush approach of one of the networks, that gives us the best of all outcomes. If we are apt not to be ome during the evening we will usually tape the "Newshour" but nothing else. We have to keep PBS TV and the Newshour alive!
Karin : PBS is refreshing, varied, entertaining and informative. The Jim Lehrer News Hour provides balanced coverage of important topics. NPR does the same with its thorough, balanced reporting. I, as viewer and listener, want more than a soundbite or a snapshot of events that concern us all. I want to be able to reflect and act on what I see and hear, and the more thoughtful, balanced and thorough input I receive, the more clearly I can do just that.
PJ : Public Broadcasting should be protected. The job of the Media is to make sure the American People are informed. Only Public Broadcasting gets the job done, consistently. Since the consolidation started in the 1990s Mainstream Media has been more concerned with their bottom line, profit margins, and shareholders than making sure the American people are informed. Fortune 500 companies consider a 10% profit, healthy, but news media is being gutted because they’re down from 30% to 20%. The result is that the American people are NOT informed. Mainstream Media was a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, when all the research was available to them, which clearly indicated Bush/Cheney were intentionally lying. Mainstream Media hasn’t exposed consistently the 6 areas of criminal activity in the current Administration, including the fact that they were NOT elected by the American people in 2000 or 2004. The same people who pulled that off, like Karl Rove and his U.S. Attorney buddy, Timothy Griffin, could be working on 2008 so John McCain can continue the $2 TRILLION (plus) abuse of power in Iraq. ("Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast, "Was the 2004 election rigged by Steven Freeman, "How The GOP Stole 2004 and Plan to do It Again in 2008" by Harvey Wasserman among several others). Mainstream Media isn’t covering the Declaration of Intent/Primciples the Pentagon hopes to force on the Iraqis, including taking 80% of their oil over the next 30 years via the Iraqi Hydrocarbon Act. The same U.S. Oil Companies, with the maps of Iraq out on the table making U.S. Energy Policy in March of 2001, are now the ones to get 80% of the oil. (VICE--Richard Cheney and the Hijacking of an American Presidency by Lou Dubose). Kucinich covered it in the U.S. House for an hour on May 23rd, 2007. BBC covered it January 27, 2007. U.S. could be off the amount of oil it gets from the Mideast by 2015, according to Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado. ("Winning The Oil End Game") Al-Qaeda has nukes and they’re bringing the suitcases into the U.S. via the Mexican Border, because of U.S. abuse of power.(The al-Qaeda Connection by Paul Williams) They’ve asked a dozen times for it to stop. Where’s the Mainstream Media coverage on this huge National Security Issue of U.S., British, and Israeli abuse of power that got us attacked on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden asked the American People to read “Rogue State” in 2004, written by a former State Department employee, William Blum, with the help of the CIA. It’s 350 pages of U.S. abuse of power since just 1950. Where’s the coverage on Israel’s abuse of power and atrocities in the Mideast, including taking 90% of Palestine by annexing all of the illegal settlements July 23rd, 2004 with the full support of the U.S. government. Why do I know most of this? Because of the Public Broadcasting—Morning Edition, Talk of the Nation, Fresh Air, The World, All Things Considered, BBC, Charlie Rose, the News Hour, NOW, Bill Moyers, Democracy NOW, Frontline, etc. etc.---people who know something about investigative journalism. Investigative journalism at its best who aren’t screaming because their profit margin is only at 20%, twice the Fortune 500 companies. People who try to make sure The American People are informed, so they can protect The United States. So no, we’re NOT doing away with Public Broadcasting, unless we want to see the United States destroyed.The research that is available that I've compiled so far is 10 pages long, and much of it came from PBS and NPR interviews with the handful of investigative journalists who felt they had to put it in a book because it wasn't being hammered home day after day via the Mainstream Media.
John D. Foster : Jim:
How ironic for the N.Y. Times to question the relevancy of PBS which offers some of the best programming on television. With newspaper sales and ad revenue flagging, it makes you wonder if they, the Times, need to question their relevancy in this modern age of electronic media.
William : The News Hour on PBS is the one hour of news that I find to be valid, relevant, properly vetted and in enough depth that raises your awareness of the more enduring questions and consider carefully the potential answers. It is also one of the few programs that can be stimulating enough as to inspire you to become more involved in key issues of the day.
evgeny : I think PBS is one of America's most valuable assets.
I am Russian. The structure of television networks ownership is different in our countries, but (except for the news) it is amazing how close the actual programming is. PBS is different. To me it looks interesting and independent.
My suggestion to PBS is creating a multi-lingual version of its website similar to what bbc.com has.
With respect to Jim Lehrer and all members of the team.
Mel Hinton : There is no other program like the News Hour that provides knowledgeable commentary on current events. With both sides of an issue exposed, we frequently see that there is a lot of gray in what often is sold as black and white on radio talk shows. Only PBS provides this service to the public. Don't cut a nickel from their budget!
Chaz : I stopped reading the NY Times online when it began charging for select columns -- eventually the Times capitulated. Now, this latest attempt by the NY Times to establish a question of relevance -- a case of desperation, from a desperate medium. Long live the King, long live PBS, the instrument that teaches!
Roger Allen : The only problem with PBS is that it now must rely on corporate support that now comes in the form of regular commercials. This does not invalidate it as the most neutral of sources for information but it does call into question the judgement of a government that lacks the political will to provide at least one source for information that is not reflective of the will of corporate America. PBS should be fully funded by tax payer dollars and there should be no need for any program to be supported by coporations, or influenced by the need to seek financial support and therefore be limited in their ability to completely and accurately present unbiased information about all aspects of life in the US regardless of who is sponsoring them. Recent decisions to cut financial support of PBS and thereby force them to seek support from, and therefore unavoidably be influenced by, "big business" is tantamount to taking the government away from "the People" because our votes are invalidated through a lack of unbiased information from which to make decisions effecting the nation. When the only sources of information are provided by "Corporate America" whose best interests are not necessarliy the best interests of the people the country has moved towards fascism. As it is PBS is the most important media source in our modern culture, even in its semi crippled current state. It should be fully funded and freed from any political or corporate influence so that it can more completely return to the path it was on before being tampered with by those with a self serving political/commercial agenda.
Russ : PBS is increasingly essential to our goal of being a representative and democratic people, against continuing consolidation of viewpoints and reductive "mass media messaging" promoted by commercial networks.
Frederick Naftolin : Although it deserves much more care and writing prowess than this message is getting, this is a simple and unvarnished vote for PBS News and especially for the News Hour and for Moyers.
There have been very few untarnished icons in American broadcast news journalism. You can count them on the fingers of one hand. The others have all fallen off the wagon; some very awkwardly and some just have either slumped off or were never really on the wagon.
These icons include Murrow, Chronkite, the News Hour partners (McNeil and Lehrer) and Moyers. Unfortunately, we have not got more than these plus maybe a few more of whom I am not aware or are not broadcasters.
Fortunately, PBS News is also a breeding and training ground for "possibles" who are commonly seen in the vicinity of the News Hour. We will have to await their growth to pass judgment on their staying power.
The PBS News is a real force in American life. It not only reports the news and keeps us aware of the real world. Because of its presence, there is a high standard against which others can, and will, be measured. Again, this goes for The News Hour, Moyers' programs and other parts of PBS News. Without them we would be a toothless tiger; and, you know what becomes of them. There is a trickle-down effect from all of this goodness. It makes it just that much harder for commercial broadcasting to shirk its responsibility. It furnishes role-models for broadcasters of the future.
Honestly, I cannot imagine our world without PBS News. Not even the BBC, CBC, DF managed to avoid being unmasked and scandalized. Perhaps it has to do with needing to beg for funds, I don't know; but, PBS has not gone over the edge, or neglected to selfcorrect before it was too late. And, in the meantime, there are all those wonderful broadcasts.
So, hip, hip, hooray for PBS; may it ever wave as clean and proudly as it is now (and a tip of the hat to CBS of former days for Murrow and Chronkite.) When we grow older, let us pray that there will still be a PBS News and new broadcasters to make us "Ooo" and "Ahh" and smile and scowl..
FN
Tom and Liz Cummings : To argue that Public Television has become irrelevent
suggests that as a public forum it's worth must be measured only by the number of viewers attracted. As I understand the PBS mission, audience numbers-ratings-were never intended to be the measure of whether or not it served a public purpose. It was intended to be, and is, independent of the pressures that can be brought upon program content by advertisers and or special interests that can purchase programming. The fact that advertisers may decide to support PBS programming is a plus for PBS and viewers, but advertisers cannot dictate program content. We desperately need fair and balanced programming, especially news and public affairs programming. The NY Times author is well off base when he suggests PBS TV is irrelevent.
bikerdoc : PBS and especially NEWSHOUR are among the few bright spots on television. Without them, TV would be a singularly dumbed-down version of "American culture".
We need them as a vital source of information and news, presented as fully and honestly as possible.
Without them, I would unplug my set.
Patrick A. Tabor : I consider PBS programing essential if our political system and way of life is not to be hijacked by the greed and avarice of corporate America and the insatiable demands of the military/industrial complex
donald sweeney : The country can't afford to loose PBS. It is our only source for unbiased national and business news, childrens entertainment, adult science and entertainment. We can't afford to loose PBS!
Peter : Maybe you can find good shows on cable, but we refuse to buy cable. We refuse to buy something so that more stuff can be hawked to us in our living room. We refuse to be forced to hit "mute" every five or ten minutes, while we wait for the program to come back.
The fact is that the airwaves belong to all of us, not to the highest bidder. There needs to be a space, albeit small, within the spectrum for the public to own and control. PBS does a fantastic job of filling the space with programming that is fair, balanced, interesting, and appealing to viewers. The Newshour in particular is a national treasure: no other news program goes into anything close to the depth that it does - all without the threat of constant of commercial interruption.
If so many support public broadcasting out of our own pockets, why doesn't our government also support it? It should. Other countries support their public broadcasting to a much greater extent than we do. We should do more, not less, to support public broadcasting.
Time to fire up the printer and write to my reps in Congress. Thanks for supplying the motivation.
Schehera Guetzloe : I cannot imagine life without PBS. I watch the News Hour and Washington Week regularly. It is without question, the best news coverage available, and the only one that provides truly in-depth, balanced and meaningful commentary on the most relevent current issues. We do not have cable, and I am appalled at the sound bites, which they call news on CNN, MSNBC, etc. Jim Lehrer is the news of choice for those of us who want unbiased,professional and in-depth news coverage. In addition, my children have benefited so much from the quality, educational children's programs. PBS is very relevent in our household, and an alternative we choose often because of the clear difference in the kinds of programming it offers.
William : The News Hour on PBS is the one hour of news that I find to be valid, relevant, properly vetted and in enough depth that raises your awareness of the more enduring questions and consider carefully the potential answers. It is also one of the few programs that can be stimulating enough as to inspire you to become more involved in key issues of the day.
Joe : Joe and Eva: We are in our 80's. We think that PBS is the best investment of our time used to watch any TV program. Newt Gingrich in 1995 stated that commercial television could do a better job than a publicly funded station. It appears that he was wrong.
PBS, we thank you for keeping us well-informed and entertained.
kathy cleveland : PBS is relevant and "The News Hour" is the jewel in its crown. I can't imagine life without it and the other programs mentioned. McGrath omitted the award-winning program "Frontline". NPR is the only radio that we listen to. Both PBS and NPR need more funding.
CP & NG : We have been watching and supporting PBS for over 30 years. 99% of our TV watching is on PBS. We rely on Jim Lehrer's News Hour for inbiased, in depth reporting and analysis. We would not want to miss Washington Week; Frontline; Now; Nova; Bill Moyers;Charlie Rose; Foreign Exchange and all the many wonderful cultural programs. Without PBS, Television watching is a wasteland and not worth our time.PLEASE--- do not take away from us this outstanding form of entertainment and information.
Thank you PBS for enriching our lives for over 30 years.
Abigail Root : Although my body lives in a desert (southern Arizona), my mind, courtesy of PBS, survives in a lush oasis. Thanks to Jim Lehrer and Masterpiece, I feel that I'm a better citizen and a wiser human being.
Carolee Allen : I am apalled that anyone would question the relevancy of The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, the most in-depth news program on TV. Americans need this stimulating newscast not more of the same with quick soundbites. Keep up the fine work!
Jim Nash : News now comes in snipets separated by commercials...what The News Hour provides is not just news, but pro and con perspective. It is also done without shouting from either the interviewer or the guests. The American public needs more programs like The News Hour, not less!
Both of us! : We make it through our life with PBS. The Jim Lehrer Newshour gives us the news stories of the day without any annoying "spin". If we are not able to watch the complete hour we try hard to be there for the last few minutes to look at the faces of the fallen troops. The sadness of these losses seems to be forgotten by all the other newscasts. Charlie Rose ends our day with his wonderful round table discussions and then there's Nova, Jane Austen...we could go on and on but just need to say we can not imagine surviving in these difficult times without PBS!
Shan : Jim -- I cannot imagine television without PBS and specifically without the Newshour -- it is an integral part of my life -- PBS has the ability to take a nonbiased point of view, and it does it well --
chetan : public television is the only tv for me and my kids. news programs on rest of the broadcast generally mostly have zero information most of the day and are heavily biased on important subjects.
Vincent Weatherill : What advertisers paid for the New York Times article? I'll cross them off my shopping list! The NY Times writer still doesn't get it after all these years: Its about not getting interrupted; its about focus. Less advertising and more in-depth coverarage means viewers of State (OPB) and national (PBS) programs make much better use of their time (than a commercial program). Furthermore, you can't be serious criticizing a stallwart like Jim Lehrer---he's the Johnny Carson of public broadcasting.
Lisa Trousdale : I started watching The McNeil/Lehrer News Hour back in 1980 when I was 10 years old. Now at the age of 37, my 3 children gather with me most evenings to watch Jim Lehrer. While there are alot of choices for news, The News Hour does not even compare to our other news choices. Jim, I hope your show is on for many more years to come. Thank You PBS!
carole : Is this serious? PBS and the NewsHour and many other informative shows on PBS are the Gold Standard of relevent and balanced reporting. Without this standard the rest of the media would continue its downward spiral even faster!
Karen G in San Diego : I love Pbs!! It is still an important channel to have especially for news and programs I really don’t see elsewhere. It feels free of corporate America. In general TV news has gotten pathetic. They have turned into news magazines with no news. At least on Pbs we get to hear what is happening around the world. I also like different points of view being aired where we are treated as intelligent viewers able to make up our own minds if given enough information. I can’t say I get the same feeling from other stations. I will agree though that NPR is great! I get a lot out of it because I can listen to it when I am on the run.
Randy : Objective news reporting and quality program content are synonymous with PBS. So much of commercial television broadcasting is mindless "bread and circus" programming. PBS clearly provides viewers with an opportunity to experience what all of television broadcasting should be delivering to our society.
Marilyn : I watch News Hour and Greater Boston every weekday. Jim Lehrer may have been around for a long time, but he's good, so why not? And he's surrounded by other good people. The program covers the news in a depth and a way not found anywhere else.
Marge : Anyone who believes that quality television should have to compete for funding with commercial stations doesn't know how the world works. Yes. PBS could use some sprucing up. But, let's not forget the contributions of the various new and current events programming. The snooty tone of an article which would demean newsmen like Bill Moyers and David Broncaccio is beneath my contempt.
Jeff Church : Speaking as someone who refuses to subscribe to cable, satellite or other for-profit TV service, I rely on PBS for its high-quality news and entertainment. For me (and for millions like me), PBS is more than just relevant. It's essential viewing.
dave robbins : PBS is the most relevent Information source. The subject matter it reveals and the depth of presentation is not to be found on any other media offered to the public. I see a real balance in the presentations with little if any political bias.
Marie Pedrin-Gizoni : I love PBS!! The news is so interesting, and has depth. I feel like I am treated as an intelligent human being. PBS has incredible programs and I have been watching them almost exclusively in the last year. I am so bored with the commercial stations. How many CSI's or stupid reality shows can a person watch, without sinking into dumbness? Thank you PBS, Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
Lucile and Gene Spurlock : The NewsHour is the only relevant news program on TV today. The others are all geared to titillate the uninformed who need superficial entertainment and are too lazy to explore the news in depth. And where but PBS can you find quality drama not interrupted by commercials so often you lose track of the plot?
Gerry O'Driscoll : Jim Lehrer has an excellent and intelligent news hour that we tevo nightly. I like discussion but the NYT is pushing it if it feels that this objective news hour is not a great national treasure. Like the BBC, which has it's critics, it is a powerful and concise review of the news.
I have read a lot of crap in the NTY over the years. Still get it daily but do not put much weight in the editoroial. Give us the facts, which it does well, and we will make up our mind.
Thank You.
-Gerry
Wally Ericson : As a long-time viewer of the Lehrer News Hour, my judgment about its superior quality in American news reporting is reinforced every day as I exercise at the local gym and see the dumbed-down, lame excuses for news coverage displayed by FOX and CNN on the TVs to "inform" us while we sweat. What's frightening is how so may people think they're getting thorough, reliable, and balanced journalism.
Josie Schaffner : I've been having dinner with Jim Lehrer and The News Hour for at least the past twenty years. He's just the right age as far as I'm concerned. And Bill Moyers is a national treasure. Maybe Charles McGrath watches the news to be entertained but I would rather be enlightened. PBS is necessary!
Patty Thompson : I began watching PBS with my parents in the 1970s - I cannot imagine being without it. The newshour is a daily check up on national and world events that will touch all our lives. Where else can you put names and faces on the many who have sacrificed their lives in the middle east ? There is no commercial value in such a gesture of honor and recognition. Bless all those at PBS who strive every day, to give us all history, drama, comedy, artistry and real depth & balance of news to contemplate and enrich our lives - without interruption of commercials ! The PBS network and the Newshour are most cetainly relevant - now more than ever !
Nancy B : That article is way below the standard of the New York Times. The author seems to subscribe to News- as-Infotainment theory. Evidently we should watch the comely young twits chit-chatting on CNN, with occasional flashes of the real world, rather than the in-depth intelligent discussions on the New Hour. Public television may have a longer thank-you time that it used to, but it doesn't interrupt the program for commercials. It seems to be the only channel that treats the viewers as grownups. The Discovery Channel feels we can not remember what was happening before the commercials, Animal Planet seems to think it would be too hard to show us that animals are not the talking pets of our childhood and thus devotes itself to anthropomorphism. To see the plays he recommends we should spend even more for premium cable.
PBS is not irrelevant, it is the bright star in the selection of increasingly idiotic shows.
Matthew Liotta : Why dont you do story's on Australia you Americans are so ignorant and Isolationist that it is not funny most of you think we are in Europe (Austria) well we are not and we have so much here as in news that it would make your own country put to shame bloody American's
GEORGE CRADDOCK : PBS CERTAINLY IS NECESSARY. IT IS A COMMERCIAL FREE GEM. PBS DOES HAVE UNDERWRITERS and SPONSORS, BUT THEY ARE TASTEFULLY LIMITED TO THE BEGINNING and END OF PROGRAMS. IN NO ORDER OF RANK CONSIDER THESE OUTSTANDING PBS
PROGRAMS: PBS NEWSHOUR, FRONTLINE, NOVA, THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE, NATURE, GREAT PERFORMANCES, AMERICAN MASTERS, MASTERPIECE THEATER, CHARLIE ROSE, DAYTIME CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS. ALSO VERY NECESSARY TO KEEP OUR NATION EDUCATED, INFORMED, and ENTERTAINED IS NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO-NPR, ANOTHER GEM. MY WIFE and I SUPPORT BOTH FINANCIALLY.
Michelle Duncan : PBS is the only truly legitimate news and educational source left on television. The country needs PBS to balance the pop culture noise and disinformation of the networks and cable television. If we were to loose PBS it would be the last nail in the coffin in a declining culture.
Gerald Mains : I am 61 years old and I have never owned a gun in my life, but I swear I will take up arms against anyone responsible for taking away PBS. Without PBS the America I know and love is truly lost and revolution is the only alternative.
Eva : McGrath is totally off base. PBS is more essential now than it ever was. His contention that cable fills the niche PBS has is ludicrous, does he really watch the Discovery Channel, with its endless array of dirtiest jobs shows, Orange county choppers and the like? And the Lehrer Newshour is the only TV news that hasn't succumbed to the lure of elevating Britney Spears latest comings and goings to the same level as elections in Pakistan, genocide in Darfur etc. I can't decide if McGrath wrote the article to generate outrage, or if he really believes what he wrote. But from where I sit, he's dead wrong. Long live PBS, America needs you!
mike : How can anyone question whether the only remaining source for independent, impartial, objective news is still necessary? As the only source of news and information that is NOT subject to corporate censorship, PBS is needed now more than ever.
Philip S. Crosby : Nova, Frontline, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nature, Antiques Roadshow, etc., plus the great local programs from our local affiliate, KOPB, account for at least 80% of our viewing. These programs are both entertaining and informative.
Sorry, I got distracted. Nova is on right now. Nuff said? That's why we're cornerstone society contributors, even though we're retired. We want to make sure that our grandchildren get to watch public television as well.
scotto13 : PBS sets a standard as a large independent reporting system, fostered by the government and individuals, striving for accuracy and doing a good job. For any PBS shortcomings, the commercial rat race must still measure itself to this standard. Without PBS, we are thrown to the wolves of cable monopolies and programming advertisers.
Sherri : An evening without the News Hour would not be the same. My husband and I watch and learn so much about the real news of the day. Do not take any part of this great news hour away from us.
Patricia Eaton : For so many years we have tuned in to PBS for The News Hour and for Great Performances and for our first view of Andre Bocelli and for Ken Burns' The Civil War and for Hercule Poirot and for Brideshead Revisited and for the story of the Strauss Family..our children have been raised with PBS. Back home we fought the powers that be to install an adequate antenna on the top of White Mountain. After heavy snows, hardy backcountry folks would ski and snowmobile up that mountain carrying parts to repair the damage, while in our valley we waited for the restoration, especially for what was then McNeill/Lehrer, (We still make ready each evening for Jim Lehrer), for classic plays and mysteries and even for the taped music performances accompanying those pledge nights. And we always pledged. And now? Who dares terminate the very best of the mostly puerile television offerings? Why are the PBS commercials longer and why are there so many? If lack of money is a problem, if PBS cannot compete financially with cable channels, then PBS needs more money. Let us put money where it is deserved so that we hang on to what quality TV viewing remains.
Ruth Johnson : Even though we subscribe to satellite TV, use high-speed Internet, read two newspapers daily, subscribe to two weekly news magazines and the Sunday New York Times, my husband and I turn to PBS, especially the News Hour, for in-depth, unbiased reporting and news coverage. We have more than 100 TV channels, yet we're most often tuned in to PBS. We make our annual pledge and would pay more if we needed to in order to keep truly "fair and balanced" newscasts available. Please continue your excellent work -- you are providing a great service to all of us and we thank you.
Joe S : PBS offerings are usually far more intelectually satisfying than most of the commercial programs. Most of the other channels are geared to a rather immature level. A reduction in PBS programming would be a great loss to our society.
David M : Awash in the hyperactive and overtly biased cable news media, PBS ( particularly the News Hour) is one of the last bastions of honest and thoughtful investigation and discussion of the day's events and major issues of the times. The major network news programs are by and large uninformative in any meaningful sense, and the majority of the programming appears to be designed to stage the self aggrandizement of the host and network view structure.
The trend toward our news media hosting a shallow, inconsiderate, loud and combative stage night after night is reflected in the poor state of our citizens' state of education, in my view, and PBS is a refuge from the worthless noise of contemporary television "entertainment" and broadcasting who's sole aim is the bottom line and shareholder value. Shareholders chase short term gains and could care less about the quality of any product beyond what customers are willing to pay relative to cost, and if those in government actually cared about the education of our populace, which is very doubtful given the state of our schools and fiscal priorities, they would keep public television funded and encouraged for the benefit of all.
Michael B : If you want to watch 30 second clips of Britney Spears and cat-in-a-tree updates, network news shows are just fine. If you want an in-depth discussion of the critical issues of the day, in which discussion participants are allowed to respond at length without the enormous ego of a network talk show host trampling the discussion, there is really only the news hour. No one who cares about the news and has spent 5 minutes watching the news hour would question this. Thank God this show is still on.
Gisela Pridmore-Brown : Mercyfully the Bush Administration is coming to an end.
It is my great hope that subsidies for public broadcasting will not be cut. The programs produced with the help of the CPB are relevant and the NewsHour in particular is unique in its calm and considered approach.
Ladybug : PBS is needed more than ever. The News Hour shines and is one of the most informative and fair-minded news shows I've ever watched. Both sides of an issue is discussed. It brings clarity to your own perspective; or to a misconceived notion. I enjoy the Nightly Business News, Nature shows and other specials PBS offers.
Randy Barbour : Oh, for the love of Peter - Paul and Mary! This again? A billion a week for Iraq and some people question the value of PBS. Common sense seems a very uncommon virtue
Jim B. in LaLa Land : Having just finished the News Hour, with Tavis on the screen, all I can say is the NY Times gotta be kiddin'!! In an area whose local news is 50% show-biz, plus the "entertainment ""news"" shows", the 3 PBS stations available on cable are islands of sanity. And that goes for Frontline, Now, & all the rest. And as far a the nature programs, etc., that appear on cable, well, they all seem "dumbed down" and slowed down from those on PBS, who still realizes people have the intelligence to follow something far less inane than the present sitcoms on the networks. And real drama is almost impossible to find on the networks, whether you like the Jane Austen series or not, "not" evidently the NY Times editorialist.
So, for this moderate Republican, long live PBS (yes, we subscribe) and may funding INcrease!
Jim V V : The large majority of Americans agree that there has been too much consolidation of media. The notion of cutting PBS back further is bad because it would make that problem worse. Indeed, the public TV has gotten a bit shabby because it has already had its funding cut too much. It is also true that public radio (NPR, BBC, etc.) is doing very well with the modest funding that they get. My conclusion is that public TV sould clearly get much more money and can be expected to do well with it. If it does not do well with adequate funding, then its top management can and should be changed, but we should not subtract deversity from the already over-consolidated media.
Jansen : Well Folks, I agree with you all. We can not live without PBS! But it is up to us to support it with our bucks as well as our voices. This is what will keep it on the air, and on our TV screens. Let's show The New York Times they are way wrong! Are you listening to all these people, New York Times?
thirty2hop : What is the need for thought provoking stories about world events from public television when we can continue to Amuse Ourselves to Death with the trivial nonsense of privately funded TV.
Suzanne : "Is PBS Still Necessary?" you ask. The unequivocal answer is YES! I own a TV and subscribe to the most basic cable available so I can watch PBS, a little local news, baseball and DVDs. One thing I watch regularly is The News Hour with Jim Lehrer. The in depth coverage, often showing opposing views is enlightening and all his staff due an outstanding job. The sensationalism of network news is nauseating. Also, the fact that Jim Lehrer is 73 is irrelevant. He has the best news program on TV.
GMuller : As someone who feels compelled to add my voice as I have never done before, I am relieved to read so many articulate statements protesting the NYTimes article, the sad state of commercial news programs and its effect on our culture; thus affirming my belief and support of PBS and especially the McNeil/Lehrer News program.
will bargmann : This is my second comment:
Necessary??? The News Hour is the only news program that presents at least a semblance of balance without cowtowing to a would be set of redacting advertisers. The Lehrer News Hour's credo is "We shall speak the truth and the truth wil make you free." rather then mainstream news' credo "Money talks." The News Hour is money well spent in support of the freedom of speech!
barbara schletzbaum : My husband and I rarely miss the MacNeil News hour. It gives us the most unbiased news every night. Much better than any of those new channels and their short sound bits of news. We want indepth stories and PBS is the greatest.
James Murphy : The NewsHour is relevant to a news consumer, a citizen, who wishes balance and depth. Jim Lehrer is not going to get younger, though, and I fear the loss of his hand someday. The whole staff is terrific, though, competent, articulate and insightful.
Now, I'm not so sure about the cousins: NOW, Bill Moyers and several others clearly express lefty perspective and persuasions, yet where is the counter-argument? PBS, similarly, is nearly a political organ. When the organizations are on the common dole, then that balance requirement is very justified.
Phil : The Times article does mention some long-in-the-tooth programming, and I for one don't understand the fascination with British comedy shows that aren't even half as funny as Monty Python. The article does NOT mention the fine investigative programming offered by PBS. I have often wondered about the funding provided by large corporations, however, and if that could have a chilling effect on pursuing some topics. For all its flaws, PBS still offers much of value, way more than commercial networks.
The question should instead be posed: "Are the major networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, etc.) necessary?" Given that THEIR programming consists of lame "reality" shows and sordid cop shows, shouldn't they be the ones we should be scrutinizing?
Consistent and omnipresent high quality programming on PBS can only be sustained by proper funding. I think that it is no mistake that a Republican administration would like to starve PBS -- they find it too leftist for their liking, which I find ironic. If anything, I think PBS overall is way more conservative these days.
Lynn Magee : The Newshour takes the time to thoroughly explain problems in today's complicated world and usually presents 2 views which give balance. Most newshows are simply sound bites that give the listener very little information. Frontline, Nova, and the Children's programming are excellent as well. PBS is a treasure that gives us all insight and a much broader picture than most TV. It would be very sad to lose any part of this.
Francis : The fourth estate (the media) is a critical part of our democracy. The major networks (NBC, ABC, the cable networks etc) are not primarily engaged in Journalism. We as a democracy are being failed by these businesses and the FCC, which masquerade foolish confrontational, nasty, and shallow shows as news in their quest for ratings and the sale of lucrative TV commercial time. Prime examples of this situation are the false so called debates between the Presidential candidates, which are more like talent shows, where the moderator is the star, and nothing of substance is really addressed. Rather the candidates are encouraged to "duke it out" to up the network ratings. This does not serve our democracy well and frustrates public informed debate about substantive issues.
PBS and NPR (Frontline and other segments) do the solitary work of Journalism and unfortunately remain virtually the only remaining source of reliable Journalism.
PBS is only irrelevant to those who suck up the pablum of the major networks and cable viscous taking heads.
PBS is relevant if finding out the truth matters. PBS is relevant if substantive discussion matters. PBS is relevant if democracy matters.
Peace Shalom : Public broadcasting is my source of sanity. Shows on NPR and PBS provide information, education, and entertainment without the "shouting contest" syndrome that has infected the rest of the media world. NPR and PBS are relevant, and will continue to be. Please keep this service alive.
bob : PBS radio and TV are great. Our only hope of learning about issues that really matter. Corporate Media does no more than amplifies the administration's message and go on endlessly about fluff.
Sherry : I cannot imagine my life without PBS programming in general and The News Hour and The Nightly Business Report in particular! We love the documentaries, as well. Let's do everything possible to keep PBS going strong!
Li'l Nel in Oregon : When I am confused by major networks coverage of events or issues, I turn to PBS to help me sort it out. They do. Straighforwardly, honestly, no hype. Of course they are relevant and necessary – even if their fund-raising methods leave much to be desired. Conversely, I cancelled my New York Times subscription.
Edlin Patterson : Democracy can not function with an uneducated populace. PBS provides an outstanding educational source with fair, balanced, detailed, and all encompassing programming.
Veronica Spin : I find it hard to believe that PBS News Hour's relevance would be called into question being the only non-sensationalized, unbiased news reporting offered. I watch it faithfully every night with my family. It is a beacon of education to national and world news, always taking their responsibility of truth serious and with integrity. One of the last raw examples of what was in mind when our fore father insured "Freedom of speech; Freedom of the Press." An American Journalistic Icon.
LVN : What exactly defines when a t.v. network is relevant or not? Is it tv ratings, really? So does that mean I have to watch "Britney's breakdown" every day until her ratings go down? Does that mean we all have to watch reality tv everyday 24/7?
Its about choices stupid (i.e. CHARLES McGRATH)
For me, PBS for is not about ratings and commercialism, its about bringing quality tv into ones lives, and if the viewer doesnt like it, then ok, switch the channel and watch something else. PBS offers variety and is for me a healthy alternative to all the garbage thats out there.
Yes its consumerism, but if you think about it PBS is like spinach, and sometimes I like spinach and sometimes I like a hotdog with extra cheese (E! Network, Comedy central etc). PBS is relevant because it gives me added choices to my viewing habits, which will always be relevant.
Thank you.
P.S. Vote Obama!!!
Bill Baum : My comments on PBS-TV public television:
After retiring as an Aerospace Engineer & Computer Scientist, with Post-Graduate studies in Law & MBA, I moved to Montana to study the psychology of Grizzly Bears and protect them from being de-listed from the Endangered Species List and having their habitat taken away from them.
My profile is: White, male, scientist (non-religious), single, politically Independent (fiscally conservative, socially moderate, environmentally liberal), teacher, Realtor, wildlife advocate, Op-Ed political writer, government growth policy land-use adviser.
My problem in living in Montana is that this is a human population that is predominantly Republican Evangelical Christian, not believing in evolution or global warming or protecting the ecology of the local wilderness, national parks, or national forests.
The local news media reflects these attitudes and censors real science and knowledge from publication in newspapers and radio and TV broadcasts, and even censors liberal documentary movies from showing in theaters. Public political rhetoric favors Republican prejudices.
Without PBS-TV I would be at an intellectual loss and would be required to view the outside world on my computer only. It is virtually the only TV I watch, since on my remote wilderness ranch, near Glacier National Park, I can only receive TV signals for 4 channels with an antenna, and only intermittently depending on weather conditions. Please do not cut me off from the outside world by eliminating PBS-TV. I need the mental stimulation that it affords me, since there is nothing else like it on TV offerings for me. I would be reduced to relying only on my reading 2 books per week and perusing the web to acquire knowledge.
Thank you for your consideration in keeping PBS-TV.
Grizzly Bill
19 Feb 2008
Andy : Absolutely Right! PBS is necessary!! What is the author of that NYTimes piece thinking? Where else will you find the highly professional, unbiased information offered by The Newshour and Bill Moyers's Journal?? I say Carry On ! you represent real Democracy!
Julie : I have been a loyal viewer of The News Hour for over 20 years. Issues are presented in an unbiased and cogent manner. I can trust what I am being told, unlike the commercial broadcasters. I particularly like hearing both sides of an issue. I respect all of the commentators, and I am delighted that Judy Woodruff is back. As others have said, it is an oasis in the desert of rabid ideologues.
Gina Weston : PBS needs to stay on the air. It is the only
independent news channel left. It is the only
one that shows unbiased news and both sides of
every issue. This news hour with Jim Leher on TV is the only worth watching.
amanda : I am a public school teacher. I use only PBS for my news and information. Growing up in an urban area I learned life lessons from PBS. I use it now as a tool to enrich my students' learning. Budget cuts are hitting students and educators alike. I hope that corporate America can look deep into it's soul to realize how corrosive current network programming is to our youth and to maintain the integrity of programming available on PBS. What a sad day it is when our children idolize the things that they cannot spell.
ZM : Leave PBS and Jim Lehrer alone!! They are keeping America educated, entertained and sane during this terrible period of depravity and dumbing down. PBS is perhaps one of the last treasures we have and we will do whatever it takes to preserve it.
John Prugh : 'Read the New York Times article....In response to the question, "Is PBS Still Necessary", I would have to say, "Yes. More so than ever". Once upon a time, you could get relatively objective informative news on the major stations, but not so much any more. (Of course, you have the newspapers, the kind that tout WMD and the case for war in Iraq.) And I love NOVA on Tuesday nights.
Yes! PBS is necessary. Still
Kathy from Oregon : Perhaps the article smells of "East coast" bias? Out here in Oregon we love not only our public radio but also our public television. Some of us don't have access to cable, and a recent opportunity to check out cable coverage demonstrated an extraordinary amount of vapidity. I happily watch our vibrant OPB TV - and the very relevant and thoughtful Newshour, Nova, American Experience, Masterpiece, This Old House, Washington Week in Review, etc. Keep up the excellent work OPB/PBS: you capably fill the huge void left by the network and cable companies.
Lee : Not only could I not live without PBS, our country desperately needs it! The downward spiral of "news" in this country is a catastrophe for our democracy as well as for our culture. PBS is the only hope of remedying the widespread ignorance described in the new book THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON. We must support PBS with our tax and personal dollars!
Ann : The NewsHour is the only national news program I ever watch. I hugely appreciate the balanced, in-depth coverage of news topics presented every day by Jim Lehrer and his A-1 news team. This and all our other fine PBS and Oregon Public Broadcasting programs richly deserve MORE public funding, not less!!!
Bill P : Much of what the NYT had to say about the fustiness of PBS programming, sadly,is true, as is the observation that the PBS audience is shrinking at the same time NPR's is growing. Much of the latter may have to do with car radios and longer commutes in the present era, but to blanket The News Hour in with the other criticism of PBS is absurd. Nothing else in the way of a news show is near as good on radio or on cable or anywhere. Retool a good part of PBS, fine, it needs it. Junk The News Hour? Don't be stupid. And to junk it because our current disgrace of a national govenment doesn't want to maintain even its miniscule committment to public broadcasting is as bad an idea as I can think of.
Larry : Although I agree with most everyone else who has posted to this site, that PBS has value, I also think the Times has made a few good points. I miss the halcyon days of progamming like Python and the Day the Universe Changed etc., and I think it is also true that PBS could use a little freshening up.
That being said, where do you go to get the kind of analytical news coverage you get from a show like the Newshour? C-SPAN? Please. And if not for PBS, would we have ever had the opportunity to see all of the brilliant work by Bill Moyers. And, unless I missed it, the Times piece never mentioned my favorite show, FRONTLINE, which must be feared like no other. Would you really expect a show like that to find its way onto one of the big three bubble gum networks. Hopefully, with the Bush Administration on its way out the door, assaults on PBS by the fearful will be replaced by enlightened support.
Mike Polak : I am almost 50 and have watched PBS since a child, have at various times supported it with pledges, and still consider the Newshour "must see TV" for news. The quality of PBS shows are often top-rate. Here's the big however - HOWEVER, in toto the focus of the network is hopelessly biased to the left. Case in point - Frontline is covering Haditha. How daring! How shocking! How original! Ya, right. How predictable is more like it. What would truly be shocking, original, and useful would be if PBS would devote truly equal time to the right. Wouldn't it be great for national conversation if those of us who want to see all sides of the truth did not have to depend on talk radio blowhards to get the other side of things. Rush Limbaugh et. al., even with all of their faults, perform a better service for the American people than PBS. If I want nothing but a left-wing slant, I can turn to virtually every other network source or major paper in the country.
ted thomas : If the point of the Times editorial was that PBS could be improved, I agree. The donor/sponsor/advertiser ambiguity needs to be resolved in favor, I believe, of something more like the European model, where advertising is allowed, but only on the hour. But the ratings issue is more troubling. If PBS' ratings are that low, it says more about the viewing public than it does about PBS. Yes, some of the programming is 'musty' (I can't stand Antiques Roadshow, and the last time I watched Masterpiece Theater was "I Claudius"). On the other hand, Ken Burns and American Experience is a national treasure, as is The News Hour, Nova, American Masters, Charlie Rose, The Mormon Tabernacle Choir Christmas Concert, the list goes on. PBS is the only refuge from television programming which requires viewers to watch 20-minutes of advertising for each 40-minutes of content.
I do believe that PBS suffers from the same disease which afflicts just about every other non-profit organization in the United States: an absence of volunteerism. I think I heard Barack Obama say something about requiring every American to perform some amount of public service during their lifetime, regardless of our state of war, or lack thereof. I hope he did. Contrary to the popular wisdom, we do have a state religion in this country, albeit a 'secular religion': Greed, and money is it's one and only sacrament. No matter what we do, even altruistically, we have no problem justifying a financial reward along with our good intentions. Whatever the cause, no matter how earnest and honorable the cause, we seem unable to do anything about it without an inexhaustible supply of Donations. Hence, the cost of doing that which is intrinsically worthwhile becomes, like everything else, exorbitant.
Greed is one of the Seven Deadly Sins, along with it's cousin, Pride, which confers a heightened sense of entitlement to compensation, the more noble the cause. PBS is, or should be, mostly about education, information, and that essential catalyst for a successful civilization: critical thinking. If PBS were to slowly disappear, like our polar ice-caps, it would be a dire outcome for this country, and an ominous indicator of our future. I would suggest we figure out how to make it survive, and thrive, without any money at all from the government. Recruiting more volunteers and mentors might be just the right way to accomplish that.
Seymour Weinstein :
February 19, 2008
Dear PBS:
Re: Is PBS Still Necessary?
When the alternative is listening to stupid reality shows, insipid newscasts and shouting
heads on MSNBC, Fox news or CNN- I vote for PBS. Who has more interesting guests
on night after night, covers the news in a more evenhanded way and in depth without
murders, fires and other assorted horrors than PBS? As for reruns that provide lots of
laughs, I'll take that any time over the raunchy sitcoms that show regularly on public and
cable channels. And I'd rather sit home and watch some of the older quality films on
PBS than pay an outrageous amount for newer films that usually are a great
disappointment.
Maybe the solution to newer high caliber shows is to increase the PBS budget instead of
cutting. With all of the waste in government spending its one of the few places where we
get our money's worth.
Sincerely,
Pearl Weinstein
Seymour Weinstein
Paige Hasson : I watch the News Hour for relevant and responsible news reporting. It has the in depth reporting that I want. PBS produces quality programming consistently and I am so grateful for this option. We need this quality programming now more than ever.
Carol from Taos : When I turn on television, I check first to see what is on PBS. If I am not interested in that evening's fare, the TV goes off. I find that PBS programming is the only programming worth watching. Perhaps in our youth culture, it is necessary to refresh PBS programs which have been on for a time. But hopefully, any change will only be minimal. The News Hour is an excellent in depth source of news and we would all be diminished if was not available.
andy : The Times? How many scandals in the last few years at its doorstep. Don't recall ANY involving PBS. Been watching News Hours since its inception. Where would we be without it? Hang tough PBS.
Scott Isler : Out here in "Little Beruit" (PDX) on the left coast we are among the last to view TNH. The broadcast just ended. I logged on to find easily 1,000 postings since 7pm eastern. A quick perusal netted no negative comments. I believe this may have some revelance to the question of relevancy. LONG LIVE PBS!
kathi : If PBS were to go away, I would not be able to watch any TV. PBS is the only ntwork with even a little interesting programing. The NewsHour is very inportant because they are the most objective in their reporting. The other network news shows are so biased they just make me made and I usually turn them off. I get most of the news coverage either on OPB or by surfing the web.
Joy Lee : The News Hour is not old, it is classic. In these days of corporate newspapers and corporate media; with mindless, undocumented blogs, the News Hour and the News Hour correspondents headed by Lehrer is more relevant and needed than ever. As is the rest of PBS programing. By the way I love NPR too.
Patty : PBS offers the most consistently valuable programs on t.v.! "The News Hour" and "Washington Week in Review" are two of the best examples of newsworthy shows which far exceed anything that commercial channels have to offer. Please don't consider reducing funding; public television and radio are invaluable.
A, DeCoster : If there were no Public Television Station, I would throw my TV away.
PBS has news programs one can trust, much less biased than those on commercial stations. It has some fine programming in the form of historical drama, articles on the natural world,
and Mastepoece Theater. I wish there were more programs like Master piece Theater.
Please.....we must always have PBS.
Keri Dearborn & Michael Lawshe : The News Hour is the only trustworthy and unbiased news programing on TV. Without PBS there would be no in depth coverage of real issues. We have abandoned the shock-value news of the major networks and cable channels. They are not worth our time. PBS and NPR keep us connected to the world and our local community. The better question would be: Is multi-channel cable and network television relevant?
Eric Partlow : In my lifetime of 61 years thus far, print journalism has dwindled to a remnant of its onetime abundance and variety. Television journalism pioneered by the likes of Edward R. Murrow is now relegated to the basement of commercial television's priorities, except at those outlets which promulgate news as entertainment with a talk-show mentality. For me, the relevance of public television in general, and “The Newshour” in particular has never been greater. In all the plethora of televised content pumped into my cable box every minute, my loyalty is almost exclusively to the programming provided on PBS, and foremost among them is “The Newshour”, because it thoughtfully and professionally provides consistent, balanced, in-depth reporting and commentary on issues that matter to me. Yes, I also read newspapers, magazines and online reportage, but I know of no better way to capture the significance of any day’s events than to tune into Jim Leher and his colleagues for an hour.
Jim : PBS is Relevant & Necessary. It offers the most informative and intellectually challenging
programs on television. These are the programs I watch on a regular basis: “The NewsHour” is The news show that I watch nightly. It is the most comprehensive, most objective and unbiased,
best news show on television. Jim Lehrer is great. "BBC World News" "Nightly Business Report" "Washington Week" "Bill Moyers Journal" "NOW" "Frontline" "Tavis Smiley" "Charlie Rose" Plus, all the many great documentary specials.
will bargmann : The News Hour is the only news outlet I trust to bring in depth coverage and unbiased reporting. There are no bells and whistles and no advertisers to submit to. The coverage is far better then commercial outlets allow with give and take between opposing views. I cherish the Friday night edition with different viewpoints offered without the "talk show" shout. Good news is what it is all about, without bias. Why do you think Jim Lehrer and his cohorts are always asked to moderate the Presidential debates? Do not take this away!
Wendy Ball : I am astonished to learn that the relevance or importance of Public Television Broadcasting is being called into question. If that learned and rational voice is ever silenced in our country, I will assume that we have entered a true intellectual dark age.
I submit that it is the relevance and accuracy of commercial TV which should be called into question. When profit margins dictate policy and content, one can hardly expect fair or impartial reporting. Over the past forty years, I have watched major stations glamorize and trivialize their news anchors to woo ratings and capitalize on the entertainment value of their programming at the expense of real issues and honest, informed discussion.
While the news team on the New Hour are attractive, cosmopolitan individuals, they are most noteworthy for their incisive and in depth reporting and spirited debates on the implications of current news stories for the near and distant future.
Furthermore, the guest speakers on the News Hour are arguably the most important political, educational, grassroots movement and pop movement leaders of our time from countries which span the globe.
For those of us who prize education, culture, philosophy, the arts, conservation, high political and moral ideals, dreams of universal justice, peaceful solutions, genuine human progress, the well being of the planet,in short any serious issue, the continued existence of public television and its' open dialog is indispensable in a free society.
James Gale : I shudder to think of a an America that willingly allows one of the last impartial and informative outlets in the otherwise corpulent and self satisfied body that is mass media broadcasting, to slip unnoticed from the airwaves. I am amazed that The NY Times is suggesting a lack of (for want of a better word) hipness in PBS's programming, and I wonder what dazzling alternatives the networks are offering, perhaps the thrill of reality based material, or the ridiculing of the inarticulate and emotionally distraught in front of chanting frenzy-whipped studio audiences, or the bright gnashing teeth of partisan pundits whose only claim to impartiality, is an indifference to which studio the check comes from as long as the agent is happy. Perhaps The NY Times is right, ballroom dancing, may not be as much fun as American Idol, and Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Mark Twain and all of Ken Burns' documentary's put together mightn't match Wheel of Fortune as riveting exciting and challenging broadcasting, but I for one will keep my dial firmly set(even at the risk of tempting Ill luck)to Thirteen.
Judy Eagle : I feel PBS is great and is one of the few government programs that earn its money by excellent children's programming, informational news and interesting public information programs. I sincerely hope there is enough of a fuss about this to get support for not canceling or putting limits/restrictions on it
Dr. Nancy Macky : Jim Lehrer's News Hour is THE place I go for news. It is the only program that explores issues in depth, allowing advocates from all sides to be heard. The interviewers are the best in the business, knowing what to ask, when to probe, when to clarify. Without the News Hour, my education in current events would shrivel to sound bites interrupted by commercials from other channels. Also Bill Moyers is the best prober-in-depth on any channel. PBS is essential to a nation hungry for balanced and deep exploration of issues.
donna : I never read tbe new york timrs. I watch PBS and tbe News Hour daily. along with their many other shows. I could live without the new york times, I am not so sure I could do without PBS.
alan : Gingrich said at Falwell's funeral that you must watch our for radical secularists. Thomas Jefferson was a very, very radical secularist; and a cutting edge liberal. The same can be said of Franklin, Washington and Madison. This ought to tell you something about who is biased. It's time to reverse field and attack the apologetic conservative bias of the media, including the often-maligned NY Times.
In the past 50 years since I began watching TV in 1957 we have become a nation of illiterate, ignorant, polarized, violent, greedy, brainwashed people who entertain themselves with mindless videogames, and mindless, insipid and untrue reality TV shows which for the most part teach people to lie, cheat, and backstab their ways to 'success.' I have seen network television fail its promise completely. Today, when GE (that decimating company) owns NBC; Disney owns ABC, and Murdock owns FOX, even the network news is as suspect as Pravda and Isvestia were to the soviet comrades. There are no Edward R.Murrows around. Cable news is no different. The only show worth watching is the Lehrer report. By the way, all these biases also apply to non-new programs.
Yes cable has animal shows, but who had a complete investigation of the Abramoff scandal; and the Enron expose of the modern tendency to allow psychotics to manage corporations. These are two things which all Americans should understand before they cast ballots in elections. Who else put on Moyer’s interviews with Joseph Campbell? Your complaints about PBS sitcoms are meaningless. I enjoy As Times Goes By, but I also enjoy Two and a Half Men. There is no snobbery involved. It’s a matter of reaching other areas of the human psyche other than just the dumb pratfall, the gross joke or the mean streak in people. There is more to us that just a torpid drug addiction watching meaningless violence on TV.
While cable does some of this, cable is still subject to commercial pressure and that my erudite friend, is the real point. Where money is involved no one can be trusted to do the right thing. That was the original purpose of PBS. It is a shame and matter of concern that PBS has had to resort to showing commercials because the Gingriches of this world have removed support form it. It is a matter of grave concern. Only and informed people can exist and thrive. It is in the interest of any government which purports to champion democracy, to support a disinterested public television generously.
By the way, I recently cancelled my cable because I can no longer afford it. Should I be relegated to watch American Gladiator and Dancing with the Stars? I imagine there are many people in America who cannot afford the exorbitant cable bill either.
Let’s face it the main issue here is an attack on the so-called arts. The movement against PBS and the arts, etc. always comes from fear based conservative types such as the religious institutions that would chastise a Galileo, burn a Giordano Bruno; or Reagan, Gingrich, et al.
Mark : PBS airs many valuable shows that do not duplicate the offerings on network or cable channels. The News Hour, in particular, provides a balanced view and in depth coverage that cannot be found anywhere else on TV.
Ann Steinhauer : I SO appreciated the News Hour with Jim Lehrer. Thank you for being on the air. It is the highlight of my life to hear your presentation each evening (even if I cannot hear it live, I record your show). I SO appreciate the commercial free and relatively biased free presentation of the news. I do not watch the commercial national news, because when I turn it on ( which is frequently, to augment the info from the Newshour, I am disappointed by the bias and in my perspective, misrepresentation of the news. Thank you for all you give to us. My sense is that if all goes at it has, we are on our way to losing freedom of the press, and in the meantime (and yes, I am a HILLARY CLINTON supporter) I so appreciate what you offer to our nation and to the world. Ann Steinhauer
Dwayne : "Forty years ago it really was different. There were only three networks, and none of them were known for challenging or high-minded programming. Indeed, public broadcasting came into being out of collective despair over what had become of the airwaves. Cable has changed all that. There are not only countless more channels to chose from now, but many offer the kind of stuff that in the past you could see only on public TV, and in at least some instances they do it better." Please, Mr. McGrath, for the edification of us all, could you name just two of these wonderful cable offerings ("stuff") that I should be watching instead of The Newshour?
Betty Booker, Richmond, VA : Sigh. Here we go again. One more wallop from the PBS bashers who would prefer that Americans hear only one voice -- and not that of PBS, which is the only easily accessible non-cable source of news that's as unbiased as they can make it. Forget competing with cable news; it's not worth competing with. The American people need at least one outlet that isn't blatantly one-sided. Even so, I often get the impression that PBS reporters and editors have their hands full trying to get real news on the air while fighting off people inside and outside the newsroom who try to push their reports ever to the right. Hold the line, guys. You're all we have left.
Tom : PBS is the only family friendly TV. Most networks offer shows of the worst quality--tawdry stories interrupted by trashy commercials. Can there be at least one educational channel that my 7 year-old daughter can watch?
Greg S. : Is PBS relevant? I believe it is so important I donate. I wouldn't subscribe to a Rupert Murdoch News conglomerate or any other William Randolph Hearst re-incarnation. Someone once said, "Honor is a gift a man gives to himself." Well, PBS is a gift America gives to itself.
Douglas Platz : I record the PBS News Hour every night and faithfully watch it if I watch nothing else. If it were not for television shows such as the News Hour, Frontline, and Nature there would be nothing on television to watch. I feel the privately owned news, and specifically television news, is no longer unbiased and is basically on the air to sell pharmaceutical drugs. Those for profit network news would never do anything that might passably jeopardize their ability to sell advertising and, as such, can not be relied on to be objective.
Barry & June Little : Without PBS, there would be no point to owning a TV. We deserve the right to hear all the facts and form our own opinions. The News Hours does an excellent job. We depend on it. Find something else to pick on.
Murray Taylor : The News Hour stands head and shoulders above any news coverage available on TV -- it simply sets the standard in that arena. If television in general even came within sight of that standard we wouldn't be wandering in a wasteland.
A comparison with NPR is another topic, and not very relevant to either medium. In my life they serve different purposes. Both are certainly excellent in their scope and execution.
jeremy : I am grateful for the dignified, compelling and insightful news programing offered on PBS. Where else but on PBS, can we experience vital public dialogue lead by masters like Lehrer and Moyers without the digital distractions commonplace to all other news channels, including the NY Times website. Shame on you NYT.
George : I feel that PBS is more important than ever. With the continual dumbing down of broadcast and cable TV, it is the only thing worth watching. I do wish it could go back to the days when there were very few commercials. I guess with the government continually cutting support it is the only way other than private foundations to pay for it. The danger is that of becoming biased toward the funders. It should remain as independent and "public" as possible.
If PBS goes away I'll be using my TV only to watch DVDs.
Power2DaPeeps : I have fought for CPB, PBS, NPR, & PACIFICA. I know why some interests want their demise. We the people have a VOICE. The aforementioned media outlets/organizations are OURS! Use them, volunteer, become an independent producer of content, support them...our DEMOCRACY depends on their existence and our involvement in the marketplace of ideas. SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER!
Jim : I love PBS: it explores stories with much more depth than commercial TV. It may be biased toward thoughtful, intelligent viewers, but it is thankfully unbiased on politics. PBS deserves continued government support because it informs all Americans without prejudice.
Nancy Padberg : PBS is our first choice when we choose which television shows to watch. I can afford cable or DVDs, but not everyone can. To produce quality shows that can be watched by anyone with a TV antenna or soon-to-be digital converter, PBS needs our support. Those who couldn't afford cable were not able to see Planet Earth. Maybe if funding was increased they would have. We support PBS monthly in our name and yearly in our grandchildren's. PBS and NPR are quality.
Out on the farm, way out : When we moved to the farm years ago and only recieved 2 commercial t.v. station I said I didn't care, if we could only get PBS.My oldest son was 3 when the "local" tower went up. All three of my children were raised watching PBS between chores,sports,music,forensics,school,church,and 4-H. At a family gathering(all the children were 6-10 yrs)their city cousins looked with wonder at a Nutcracker doll and asked what is it, my youngest explained and told them the story. My three are through college, one a graphic designer, the second a language art teacher and the third a case worker for a local mental health facility. Not only did they get their degree but also the ability to reasonably question all sides of an issue. My family used PBS programing to facilitate discussions rounding out their intellectual maturity. My husband I have since "moved to town"(150 pop.)and I still don't have cable or receive more than three channels.I happened across the n.y. times article last nite while looking for sites to use in my art classes and thought here we go again.
People need to get out more and discover what the rest of the country is about.I promise you won't go mad with clean air, flat land, billowing grass and no ocean for many, many miles. This is a flat world, and the best source of information about that world is PBS. Our local(250 miles away} commercial channels don't cover anything that is not local(again 250 miles to the SW) and cable does not even bother--no profit it that.We live in what use to be called a culturally deprived area, we aren't going to go to the opera, ballet, or local museum, those are 450 miles away. There are many of us out here, all over the U.S.
What we need is additional funding to purchase more programs like Planet Earth, enhance PBS programing to the level of some commercial television-- giving my students alternatives to playing Halo III to the expert level or all the "no brainer" programs on commercial television that they watch unthinkingly.
Lee : We watch only PBS and C-Span for national news and current affairs programming. The other national news programs are either pretentious (we're in the Situation Room) or far too brief and superficial in coverage, or both.
Is this necessary? For my wife and me, yes.
Margaret : I'm 25 years old and I've been watching the NewsHour every night for several years. I can't bear to watch cable news or commercial network news anymore. So, without PBS I would be lost.
peter : now, having just read the original times article, i stand by my last purple message just as adamantly! the fact that other tv offerings echo those of PBS does not diminish those offerings from PBS...nor do they make PBS less relevant simply by doing similar programming not as well...have we all forgotten the reason this organization was created, as a mandated attempt to balance a playing field driven by advertising, not service? that need has not diminished, and neither has PBS's relevance...
TerriB : I think this was a desperate attempt by the New York Times to lure to their website people who normally have no interest in that newspaper.
My husband and I watch the News Hour every night and I must confess that Washington Week is my favorite show. PBS is vitally necessary.
Mister O'Cooney : It is interesting to here the snobs on the New York Times site attack PBS. They believe that only some people should be allowed access to quality, educational programs, and in depth world news. They believe that only those that can afford cable should be allowed such access. Elderly and others on fixed incomes, those that recently lost there homes due to the collapsing housing market, and others who cannot afford the pricey cable bills should instead be shut out and denied access to quality educational television and in depth world new, interesting snobbery coming from those that have. I'd respond to these people, but it certainly could not be posted, nor mentioned on air without heavy fines.
nathan : In my region of the South there are relatively few quality sources of news providing unbiased, multiple view point, reporting of events and issues pertinent to my concerns. NewsHour is an exception. Given the predominate views in my region and the lack of unbiased reporting, it's not surprising that robust alternative points-of-view haven’t been supported. While it's true that the internet and cable television provide ample opportunities for exposure to alternative viewpoints, these sources aren't freely available to all. Also, it's been suggested that users of these sources gravitate toward the views and opinions that are most familiar, rather than branching out to viewpoints that aren't already held. In media markets such as NY, with vast and extensive local sources available to the average person, this may not seem to be such a pressing problem. Consider that outside the regions with concentrated media outlets, PBS may be the only source of balanced reporting for many.
Ann Parker : Public Broadcasting is the only source of news that anyone can trust. The other programs, such as Nature, Nova,Masterpiece Theatre, and FRontline are also my favorites. How could anyone wonder if Public Broadcasting is still relevant?
Ann Parker
StillAmazed : We shouldn't be having this discussion.
It's embarrassing.
In a country with such generally low standards of media integrity, public awareness, and political accountability, the question 'Is PBS Still Necessary?' is simply embarrassing. It's not only necessary, it's literally vital.
John P : The issue isn't whether the government should support PBS or not, it is why hasn't it support it more than it has. It is part of a different medium, but we accept to some degree the support of the arts, drama etc. Why not the television arts. Comparing the News Hour with the available commercial news is absurd. There is the news and then there is glitz and one-minute sound bites. That's the comparison. Regardless of the quantity one should support the range of programming so that we have choices. Sure there are several shows I don't watch but there are a lot that I do. Ask yourself, have you really noticed the writer's strike in your tv viewing habits? I have barely noticed it in my viewing. It is I believe the government's responsiblity to provide tv viewing that requires your mind to focus and forces one to aske questions, and receive answers and inspires. We watch News Hour in our house and following it have good discussions on the days features and so forth. We enjoy this opportunity to feed a family debate. My vote is definitely on improving support and the predictability of that supporty by our government.
Greg Stafford : Keep up the the good work PBS. I especially like the News Hour for its balanced reporting. I have talked to people from the left and the right and their chief complaint seeems to be that the reporting doesn't support their point of view. Lots of luck with those points of view.
Paul : My wife and I have watched PBS evening news and select entertainment programs for over 20 years. We are seventy years of age, and have long ago recognized its value. We watch PBS because similiar quality programs are seldom on regular TV. We started as young graduate students in the UK and spent the first two years of marrage (with a new baby) by the fireplace in the evening listening to BBC radio and talking about the news and programs. During the next 20 plus years we worked in a dozen countries and had to listen and watch what was available - some good, some bad. Our initial impressions of many countries were formed on their television and radio programs filtered through our language capabilities. But there was always good programing to be found. The same can not be said about America without PBS.
We watch PBS because it continues offering news and entertainment reflecting quality and relevance, something very rare on American commercial TV.
Paul and Mary Anne
Melanie : I agree with so many others who have commented before me that Lehrer's Newshour provides the only news that is worth watching. And the in-depth shows on Frontline, Nature, Nova and the wonderful Masterpiece Theater shows from BBC aren't duplicated anywhere. I love you, PBS, and I support you, and have supported you monetarily for at least 7 years.
Lucille Pierce : Truly, if there were no Public Broadcasting Service, I would have absolutely no reason to keep a TV set. My news is almost exclusively from The News Hour, plus Friday evening's offerings; and the majority of my viewing is on PBS where the programs offered are more balanced,entertaining and instructive. I can not imagine the New York Times, of all entities. suggesting we do not need it. Our culture would be the poorer without the rich and varied programming found on PBS. We need more support for it, not less.
wlarsson : I make it a point in my full week to tune into the News Hour just to see David Brooks & Mark Shields comment on current events.
The News Hour has never been relevant to dummies, but I'm with the bunch of folks who find the broadcast as essential as water in the desert!
It will indeed be a sad day if the News Hour is declared irrelevant to the news of the day. The format allows for brilliant analysis and impeccable coverage of current events.
Larry Hoffmann : Age discrimination can be "buried" in every day life, but age bias is alive and well and fluorishing on the editorial pages of the NY Times.
It was very clever of the writer to resort to the kind of selective reporting I am used to seeing at Fox, when they have an agenda to push. To have not even mentioned Washington Week, Frontline, Independent Lens, Nova and all the interesting, but "limited audience" programs that make up Saturday programming on PBS is hardly "informed", in my opinion.
I am 62 years old, served in the Marine Corps in Viet Nam, including the Tet Offensive of 1968, went to college on the GI Bill afterward - never possible any other way, and made my way through the business world and was lucky enough to be President of two companies, and live in Asia for five years at the end of working life, so I am not a "silver spoon" bleeding heart, or a "Fortunate Son".
In addition to the fine programs mentioned above, Foreign Exchange, in my opinion should be required watching for the insulated and insular US population.
PBS is balanced, in-depth, thoughtful, and almost always thorough. The commercial fare proffered on the networks and cable that the NYT editorial thinks so much of falls far short of balance and depth PBS brings to my living room.
Corky K. Forbes : There is no question that PBS is revelant. It is the only network you can truly trust to get educational programing and accurate news. The News Hour is an objective source of infomation and news. Other networks sensationalize the news and don't give you the whole story.
Jan : The Newshour, Now, and Bill Moyers are all PBS programs I rely upon to be objective, balanced and comprehensive. I rarely watch any other station as my expereince has been there is a lack of objective news and an abundance of sensational stories masking as news. It is sad to see how dumbed down the news is on the network channels.
Keep up the great work to inform us on the issues of the day, to encourage us to engage in discussions of the issues you present and staying true to objective journalism.
John and Carole Monaco : My wife and I have been watching the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer since the McNeill days. We trust the NewsHour. It is balanced, intelligent and thorough. Picture it. The NewsHour is a public institution doing the work of the people. We offer our heartfelt thanks to Mr. Lehrer, his staff and contributors. Great job!
george : you may think that PBS is out of date, but the news hour has brought not only my wife into poltics but also my kids. It is the only place on tv that one can get a full understanding of the issues of the day. my kids are both in college and are becoming politically active, and my advice was not to listen to one source of news but listen to several sources. To my great relief their news sources are the BBC America and PBS news hour.
Tell me where today people can get a intelligent point of view. It sure is not on TMZ.
Regards
George
Chris : I'm 23, that's right 23, and I'm an avid PBS viewer (mainly Newshour, NOVA, and especially Frontline) simply because of the lack of quality on the networks and definitely cable. I'm sure I'm in the minority of people my age who watch the nightly news but a half hour of the "this is what happened, here's a commercial" format on the other networks can't even come close to the quality, depth, quality, and quality of PBS' flagship programs. (With the exception of anything that has to do with Bill Moyers. I live in Eugene, Oregon and I still find those hard to swallow). The ratings between the two formats don't even compare but if you ask me, Katie Couric could take a few lessons from Jim and the folks at Newshour.
Linda Z : I believe that the Lehrer Report (and PBS in general) is the only news program that is truly independent. I count on this program for an in-depth analysis of the issues of the day in an unbiased manner. I believe the corporate/commercial stations have contributed to the "dumbing down" of Americans. PBS in general is the only network that does not give us our news in sound bites geared toward sensationalism.
SAS : The News hour is by far the most informative and unbiased news program we have access to and PBS rocks !!! I watch it more than any other station. The intelligence and educational value of their programming beats all the alternatives. Funny, I don't get the same feeling when I read the NY Times.
Eric Horn : I believe PBS and specifically "The News Hour" are extremely relevant for today's information needs. I watch several news channels periodically, and I believe that "The News Hour", in general, provides the least biased, most informative, and broadest coverage of important issues confronting our society. It is nice to hear quiet intelligent debate among civil people with different views, as contrasted with the loud, noisy, often raukus confrontations on other networks, and the unimportant fluff that often characterizes the other networks. In these times of the disUnited States, the loss of PBS and especially "The News Hour" would leave a significant hole in the information spectrum. I personally believe that all views on all relavant and important issues should be heard, and an informed society is our best defense for our troubled democracy. The News Hour is the best program on television where differences among experts are presented and discussed.
Bob Ylvisaker : Not relevant? Sure, many of the programs have been around for quite a while. But that's precisely because they deal with relevant topics. PBS, headed by the NewsHour, remains the gold standard for public affairs and is also a great source of wholesome entertainment. Despite its reputation, the NY Times is not immune from errant judgments. This article is another case in point.
gtait : Continue to cut its budget. Try to pack its board with persons opposed to other than conservative views. And what is expected of it will diminish.
But don't give up. those few who don't appreciate 'reality' television, game shows, and OR.
The lowest common denominator programing will produce a country of the lowest common denominator level of achievement. In many areas, we are well on the way.
We are already restricting scientific and medical research to accomodate political and religious bias.
Public television has been on the hit list since it covered [un-covered] segreation in the South.
And Public Television? The Times article blames for the very shortcomings that its distractors have placed upon it. Lack of funding and leadership that often has been at cross-puropses with its mandate.
Ruth Kearns : I don't want to think about life without PBS. We tape the News Hour every evening and Now and Washington Week every week so that if we are not home or if phone calls interrupt, we will not miss these important broadcasts. We also enjoy other programs such as Nova, Nature, and documentaries. We also read newspapers--The Arizona Republic, The Wall Street Journal, and the Sunday New York Times. We look at the Times online, as well. I like getting my news from both kinds of media, but I especially appreciate the balance of PBS programming. I rarely watch network TV because there is so little of value. Ending PBS would mean that we have truly given in to corporate America..... Don't let it happen!
Murray : I am 70years old and am an avid fan of the PBS News hour and would feel a great loss if this program were discontinued. The nightly newscast is the only channel that consistenly presents all sides of an issue with opinion from well- qualified guests and without a trace of predjudice from PBS. This kind of reporting allows viewers to consider the facts and form their own opinion. This contrasts sharply with the other cable network news stations which mostly try to shape public opinion with biased reporting and placing undue emphasis on pieces of information that supports the stations ideology and world view. Long live the PBS newshour.
Nancy C. : I rely on LehrerNews as a "fair and balanced" program for help to deduce what is actually going on in secretive Washington DC. I'd prefer a bit more outrage, but Jim and his wonderful crew (who look like well-groomed everyday people) make an effort to calmly present two sides or more to every event, and without commercials at every break! I loathe pledge weekS, and wish funding were commensurate with expenses. I'd also do away with such dependence on Brits for drama (or make them speak English as clearly as their countrymen on NPR).
David Stoebel : PBS is the only source of intelligent and thoughtful news reporting and analysis available on broadcast television. Without it there would be no point in having the damned thing in my house. PBS not relevant? Nonsense! The question is “Are the networks relevant”.
Ek Buys : Ah, yes. I see. (1) Private TV networks now do everything public television does, and they do it better. (2) Not that public television could not improve its progamming; but it does not have the funding. Those are the central claims of the Times piece (easily lost amidst a good deal of verbal wandering). The first is so vague -- no clear criteria are articulated -- as to be logically useless. The second is probably true, but what is the point? Public television funding was cut methodically -- and now someone says, "Gee, look, public television is underfunded." So, fund it.
What a logically barren essay!! Terms undefined, criteria unstated, ad hominems offered in lieu of cogent reasoning, suppressed premises. The Times can do better than this.
In the nonlogical, vague, and emotional spirit of the Times piece, I respond "Give me PBS or give me death." (Much easier than doing all that bothersome critical thinking stuff.)
Ed Magee : The Nightly News Hours is the finest news program on Television. It is current , relevent and fair. It gives both sides of an issue an opportunity to present their case. The News Hours does not badger or intimdate its guests. PBS provides the highest quality programing to educate,inform and entertain. To lose PBS would be to lose the finest Television Programing American has every known.
Mecal : I am 25 years old. And, can I say very fashionable and timeless? Nevertheless I see what is going on with mass media and the revenues generated by marketing. PBS is the last sliver of the old law that required each station to give a few minutes of the news broadcast to a non-profit or opposing party. (I can't recall the name of the law.) Speech is not free when you have to pay for it. By watching marketed television the viewer is paying for it through the ads. The information on PBS is 'free' or developed through donations. And the intentions are educational, not monetary. Anyone who does not see the value of PBS programs has not truely given it a chance or experienced the benefits of that type of media. PBS evokes an attitude of the very necessary qualities of self-reflection, conservation of resources and expantion of intellect and mind. Props to the vision and journey.
Richard Weikart, Bowie, MD : I couldn’t disagree more with your suggestion that the time for PBS is past. I’ll confess that having Newt Gingrich and President Bush against it presents a powerfully compelling argument for its support since neither has shown an intellectual curiosity, an openness to an objective discussion of ideas, or a hint of interest in educational or cultural programming that has always marked PBS.
That argument aside, PBS, in spite of your accurate and well-taken observations about its sometimes bland programming and the competition it faces from other excellent programming on the wealthier cable outlets, the good still outweighs the lame. The NewsHour, in spite of Jim Lehrer’s 30+-year tenure (or perhaps because of it), and not to mention the excellence of Gwen Ifill and the other correspondents, still provides the best objective in-depth analysis of the news on television.
Hasn’t the point of public television always been to provide the kind of quality programming that does not have a large enough audience share to attract the sponsors required to make it on commercial TV? Your solution, of course, is the right one. Public television should have more—much more—funding, not less. Only then will it be able to improve its programming, reduce its fund raising, and let us see more Great Performances from the Met and save us from American Idol and American Gladiators.
I wonder, in closing, what share The New York Times, or more specifically its Art/Television section has of the rapidly declining newspaper reading public. It would be a shame if it was dropped because it is sometimes a little shortsighted and didn’t offer something for everyone.
I have to run. My PBS station is airing a Frontline report on the civilian massacre at Haditha, Iraq. Somehow I missed the in-depth coverage on Fox News.
Richard J. Weikart
Bowie, Maryland
SB TRapp : PBS is the only independant news station in the US. Other stations like CNN are mostly in support of the present government. Only on PBS do you find insightful and thoughtful journalism.
John Nathan : How should PBS deal w/competition from cable tv? It has none! A&E, Bravo, DSC, & TLC have degenerated into boutique sloth. Chas. McGrath should reevaluate his own
seventh paragraph: forty years has changed nothing. Talk about, "...despair over what has become of the airwaves." I am so proud of the best of what I see from PBS that I can't imagine it not being available.Make no mistake about this, either: PBS programming is among the very best we offer the rest of the world. Sound the death knell? Don't we export enough trash?
Jose Sttauss : We strongly believe that it is essential to have PBS TV to continue bringing higher cultural programs, discussions of various topics in the news, and uninterrupted movies/plays/concerts. We watch PBS 95-100% of the time instead of commercial channels. It would be a crime to discontinue PBS TV stations.
MA : I absolutely think PBS is relevant. Too bad I was unable to respond on the Times website because once I logged in there was nowhere to post my comment. So many of the shows are rewarding and are not the pap that is on cable.
Teresa : I agree with Jim. PBS and The News Hour is as good an example of free press as we have left in this country. The corporatocracy doesn't like it because the dumber Americans become, the more they will buy things they don't need. Get them used to "sound bite" journalism and people become too lazy to think. I do not subscribe to cable TV, so I don't know what kind of news programs are available there. But since TV is primarily a venue for advertising, I will not pay for it, so cable is not an option for me. The News Hour is the only respectable daily news program on network TV.
Ralph : For over 40 years PBS has been my most-watched channel, and I am a happy and regular supporter of PBS. It is the only place that offers a semblance of balanced news, and PBS (often in partnership with the BBC) is the true home of great entertainment on TV.
When it comes to relevance, it's the NY Times, not PBS, which is on shakey ground.
Carole Bahou :
I never watch commercial television - it is too loud, too shallow and has too many commercial interruptions. I cannot imagine television without PBS (both Ch 13 and 21). The American public is very poorly informed as it is - without PBS we wouldn't know anything about what takes place in other countries- not to mention what is really happening in our own. So much for choice in the world's pre=eminent market democracy. And the arts programming is civilizing in a nation that is in sore need of such.
Give it more money, not less!
Karel Wollaston : There is no substitute that I've found, on radio or TV, for PBS Newshour: in-depth news coverage. I also enjoy such shows as American Experience, Frontline, Nova, and many others, too. Cable TV doesn't offer these alternatives: I've tried to find such programmming and have failed to do so.
Maarit : When I first moveed to the U.S. almost four years ao, I was deeply shocked by the utterly poor quality of news reporting on commercial channels. The I found PBS and The Newshour Jim Lehrer and I think it saved my sanity. I've been a faitful watcher ever since. PBS is irreplacable.
NewsHour Viewer Comments