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 bla
NewsHour Viewer Comments