I've been thinking about this doctrine during the past two days as a fast-moving dispute erupted, first on conservative Web sites and then escalating to talk radio, cable news, broadcast television and the newspapers. At issue were challenges raised mostly by several conservative commentators aimed at Gwen Ifill, the host of PBS's Washington Week program and senior correspondent for The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, and, most pertinently, the moderator for tonight's high-stakes debate between Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden and Republican vice-presidential nominee Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.

The focus is on a book that Ifill is writing, "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama," and that is scheduled to be published by Doubleday, an imprint of Random House, on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, 2009. The headline on the initial story on World Net Daily reads: "VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book." Collectively, the accusations by her critics are that that Ifill and the book are pro-Obama, that she is not a non-partisan moderator for the debate, and that she has a self-interest in that her book sales will be boosted by an Obama victory.

The Doctrine Was Missing in Action

I don't agree with that, and I'll explain why. But I do think that a "no surprises doctrine" should have been employed in this case. The bi-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates that selected the moderators for the presidential and vice-presidential debates failed to ask questions — anything new that we should know? — that might have led to discussions about the forthcoming book, and Ifill failed to bring it up with the Commission. Here, too, there are reasons that sound reasonable as to why this didn't come up. But it should have, and the Commission and the candidates then would have had time well before the debate to raise any doubts that they had. It is crucial not to let anything diminish the credibility of these events. Once the controversy erupted, the Commission also failed to address it promptly and publicly, something that fed the escalation of the dispute on the eve of the debate.

PBS, by the way, is not really involved in this. It is the Commission that selects the moderators. But thousands of people have called and e-mailed me and PBS in the past 36 hours, apparently spurred on by some of the critical Web sites and commentary. Despite this, PBS has also had no public comment about this controversy aside from a one-liner from a NewsHour spokesperson who told the Post, "The book has been out there and discussed for months. It's a non-issue." Well, it's not a non-issue to those callers and e-mailers, and some more detailed explanation was in order, in my view. Ifill doesn't actually work for PBS. She works for MacNeil/Lehrer Productions.

PBS has, however, been responding to phone calls with the following message:

"The non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which sponsors and produces debates for the United States presidential and vice presidential candidates, chose Ms. Ifill as moderator based on her credentials and long-standing track record as an outstanding reporter. This is the second time the Commission has asked Ms. Ifill to moderate the Vice Presidential debates; she served in this same role during the 2004 election. When asked about Ms. Ifill's upcoming book, the Commission's Co-Chairman Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. stated, 'She's a woman of impeccable integrity. This won't interfere any way with her being a fair and objective moderator.'"

Reacting to critics who have cast doubt on Ifill, her journalistic peers and many politicians have offered numerous testimonials to her reportorial skills and non-partisan approach to coverage. The most important came from Sen. John McCain and Palin.

McCain told Fox News: "I think Gwen Ifill is a professional and I think she will do a totally objective job because she is a highly respected professional." He then added this: "Does this help . . . if she has written a book that's favorable to Sen. Obama? Probably not. But I have confidence that Gwen Ifill will do a professional job."

Palin said on Fox: "I'm not going to let it be a concern." She said, "That just makes us work harder. It makes us want to communicate even clearer and more profoundly with the electorate, letting them know what the contrast are between these two tickets."

On Content and Timing

Here's some context to some of the comments that have been made and the timing of this controversy.

McCain and others have talked about a book favorable to Obama. Ifill points out that the book isn't even completed, and the chapter on Obama has not been written. So nobody knows what this book is going to say about him. Ifill's book is actually a natural, something that some good reporter and observer was going to write and she has been in an excellent position to do so. It is a broad theme about the emergence of a new generation of African American leaders who have benefited especially from the civil rights struggle that took place a generation ago.

In an essay in Time magazine on Aug. 21, Ifill talked about her book and its theme. Obama, she wrote, "is just one member of a generation of political leaders faced with a new task: honoring the contributions of their forebears without alienating the broader, multiracial audiences they need to win. I've spent part of the past year tracking dozens of these rising stars, and have concluded that anyone who thinks Obama is unique is not paying attention." The book deals with many young black politicians and office holders around the country.

The Time essay actually appeared after the debate Commission announced, on Aug. 5, its selection of PBS's Jim Lehrer, NBC's Tom Brokaw and CBS's Bob Schieffer for the three presidential debates, and Ifill for tonight's vice-presidential meeting. But the book has been listed on Amazon.com since well before the Commission decision. Ifill refers to it in her biography that appears on the Washington Week Web site. The Associated Press referred to the book in a story about another PBS program host, Tavis Smiley, that appeared on July 23. And Ifill talked about the book in a Sept. 4 profile of her in The Washington Post.

So the book has not been a secret, although the McCain campaign is reported to have said that this week's Web stories were the first they knew of it. It is plausible that the campaign junkies might have missed these references. But for those who do scrutinize every bit of press coverage, there certainly would have been plenty of time and opportunities for critics to raise this issue more than 36 hours ahead of the debate, and for the Commission to ask the McCain campaign if they had any problem with this.

The Commission is headed by co-chairmen Paul G. Kirk Jr. and Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr. I managed to reach Fahrenkopf by phone late on Wednesday, who acknowledged that the forthcoming book did not come up in the Commission's considerations, that Ifill didn't bring it up and that the Commission wasn't upset by that. "We make the selections" and tell the one selected that "the Commission would like you to moderate. We know who we were choosing and I can assure you that if we had known (about the book) it would not have made a darn bit of difference to me or anyone else. We know all these people. They have tremendous integrity." Referring to the vice-presidential debate four years ago that Ifill also moderated, he said she "did a great job in the previous debate."

In the Crosshairs

Anyone who appears regularly on the five-nights-a-week NewsHour will come into a certain amount of criticism from some viewers. I have written about Ifill a number of times, including some critical references. Most recently, she was the focus of attention in the aftermath of the Republican National Convention when several viewers said they detected anti-Palin bias in Ifill's facial expression, a criticism I disagreed with.

Ifill and I were colleagues when she was a reporter at The Washington Post for several years during the late 1980s. But we were on different staffs. I'm actually a lot more familiar with her work on PBS because it is more my business these days, and I rate her highly as a smart, experienced, quick-thinking and tough-minded interviewer. And no reporter under the kind of intense scrutiny that comes with moderating a vice-presidential debate in perhaps the most remarkable and tension-filled campaign in memory has anything to gain by appearing partisan. So I would agree with McCain's expressed sense of confidence in Ifill's professionalism.

But this book project should have been surfaced by the Commission or Ifill much earlier to make a reasoned and "no surprises" decision in plenty of time to be discussed and explained, to have potential public perceptions considered, and to be checked with the candidates.

One of these events is the by-now famous, or infamous, "Palin Poll," which first appeared on Sept. 5, following the Republican National Convention, on the Web site of PBS's weekly public affairs program NOW. That program asks a new question online every week, and the one on Sept. 5 asked whether the newly named vice-presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, was qualified to serve as vice-president.

Last week's column dealt in part with that issue. At the time, the earlier comments were mostly from viewers who wanted to know why NOW didn't have a similar poll asking if Sen. Barack Obama was qualified to be president. I wrote that I thought the question about Palin was a reasonable one given the surprise nature of her nomination and the fact that she was unknown to the vast majority of voters.

But what I didn't recognize at the time was that the kind of polling used by NOW, which is used by other organizations, such as CNN, and has some real online privacy advantages if people vote just once and then go about their business, is totally vulnerable to the same person voting a thousand times, to being hijacked and manipulated by partisans and e-mail campaigns on both sides to the point where it swamps the system with tens of millions of votes and becomes totally useless while making many people quite angry at, and disappointed in, PBS. One possibly good thing to come of this is a PBS policy, instituted on Sept. 23, of a new online voting system that can help prevent such abuses but at the cost of reduced privacy.

Here's a new explanation of the background to policy changes and a brief history of the Palin Poll from NOW executives Joel B. Schwartzberg and John Siceloff.

The Unidentified 'Embedded' Blogger

The other fascinating drama unfolding on PBS.org did not involve millions of people, or thousands of people voting hundreds of times. Rather, it involved two articles published on "MediaShift," a weblog that is updated very frequently — about 15 postings a month since it got started almost three years ago — on PBS.org. The editor and host of MediaShift is Mark Glaser, who is described on the homepage as "journalist, critic, facilitator and new media expert." The purpose of the site is to "track how digital media technologies and techniques such as weblogs, RSS, podcasting, citizen journalism, wikis, news aggregators and video repositories are changing our world. It will tell stories of how the shifting media landscape is changing the way we get our news and information, while also providing a place for public participation and feedback."

My career has been mostly in what younger people would describe as old media — newspapers printed on paper. But I obviously work online, read a lot of what is online, especially newspaper sites, and try to keep up with what's going on. And so I follow, from time to time, Glaser and MediaShift, both of which are intelligent, provocative, and on the frontline of the new means of reporting and communicating that we all know are emerging. I think it is to PBS's credit, and to the underwriters, the respected John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, that this feature has a prominent place on PBS.org.

Here Comes the 'But . . .'

But, I have serious problems with the episode that unfolded recently in which a journalism student at New York University, Alana Taylor, authored a Sept. 5 posting as an "embedded" blogger on MediaShift, writing critically about her class content and professor at NYU without informing either the teacher or her classmates about what she was doing. The headline read: "Old Thinking Permeates Major Journalism School." This column attracted a lot of online attention and controversy, not to mention attention by the professor, Mary Quigley, who was not happy. Glaser then wrote a follow-up column on Sept. 17 about the controversy, headlined "NYU Professor Stifles Blogging, Twittering by Journalism Student."

The controversy was brought to my attention by Adam Penenberg, an assistant professor at NYU and chairman of the journalism department's ethics committee, who raised numerous journalistic challenges to Taylor's "embedded" role and reporting techniques and also questioned whether this was not a violation of PBS' own editorial standards. That's where I came in.

This is a complicated issue involving all sorts of free speech and privacy issues, respect for other students' rights, private versus public institutions, and also whether the classroom should be a place where every word can be recorded, personal opinions introduced, and put on the Web without anyone but a blogger knowing about it beforehand.

I think that teachers and professors need to be accountable for what they say in class, and certainly student blogging (after class would be my preference) can be a useful tool in helping to improve struggling courses, reinforcing those that are really good, or simply expanding ideas and discussion.

But the issue here for me is that Taylor was not just an undergrad posting her observations on her own blog about her journalism class, called "Reporting Gen Y." Rather she was hired — although not for money, according to Glaser — by Glaser as an "embed" to write for MediaShift. So Taylor's post did not simply join millions of other postings in the blogosphere by individuals that may or may not have many readers. This one was sponsored by PBS's MediaShift and had immediate access to the huge PBS.org audience.

Furthermore, this was a journalism student in a journalism department who did this without either telling the teacher what she was doing or who she was doing it for, without asking permission of the teacher or other classmates (one classmate is quoted anonymously, also not a great journalistic habit to get in to), without checking content or asking for the teacher's views of the author's critical assessments, and without, of course, identifying her national connection to PBS. Glaser, wrote Penenberg, assigned this NYU junior "to go undercover in one of her classes to blog about her impressions for PBS." That is more straightforward language in this case than "embedded," but it sounds right to me.

However journalism is going to evolve in years to come, and whatever platform readers and viewers will choose to get their news — assuming they want to stay informed — it seems to me that certain fundamentals must remain bedrock. Among them is the notion that journalists must always, except in the most rare circumstances, announce themselves, go through the front door, say who you are, what you are doing and who you are working for. To avoid doing this in a journalism course is not a great career move or a way to get started, in my opinion.

It is also a violation of the NYU journalism department's ethics handbook that says, according to Penenberg, that "the vast majority of time journalists should make clear to the people they are interviewing that they are journalists. State your name and affiliation up front." But are journalism students journalists? Are bloggers journalists? And does an ethics handbook have any validity? I would argue the answer is yes to all three in this case.

In past MediaShift columns, Glaser has been upfront about his intention to use "embedded" correspondents. (That term, in Taylor's case, is actually a misnomer. It became popularized during the run-up to the war in Iraq when reporters — clearly identified — were "embedded" within various military units.) Back in June, Glaser put out a call for new correspondents and "embeds" to write for MediaShift. The idea, he said, was to: "add more voices to this blog besides mine, open it up to more ideas and diverse opinions, and get better coverage of areas where I am lacking." That's all to the good. And in July he listed 10 or so embeds and correspondents who had signed on. Taylor was one of those listed. I read the first report by an "embed" at NBC News that was quite informative, had people on the record with different views, and was journalistically sound. But Taylor's approach, and Glaser's acquiescence, was different.

Glaser Agreed She Should Have Asked Permission, but Didn't Say So

In his message to me, Penenberg also pointed out that Glaser, in e-mail exchanges with Penenberg about the Taylor episode, said: "I agree that she should have got her teacher's permission before writing about the class." Then Penenberg adds that Glaser never mentioned that in the follow-up piece he (Glaser) posted on MediaShift on Sept. 17. "He was not forthright about that posture in his piece," as Penenberg politely put it. Glaser's follow-up piece was lengthy and brought in all kinds of ethical and legal issues as he and others see them. Yet failing to mention that he also felt that Taylor should have gotten the professor's permission seems a serious omission.

When I asked Glaser if he had indeed acknowledged that Taylor should have asked permission, he said that was correct. But he said there was "more context to my statement than that. While I did want Alana to get her teacher's point of view in the first story, and wanted her to interview other faculty at NYU, she said that she would do it in a follow-up story. She was worried that if she approached her professor about what she wanted to write, that the professor wouldn't have allowed her to write the piece at all. I stand by running that initial piece because I think it was a valid opinion piece written in the first-person by a student about what she saw as the failings of NYU journalism's school. Again, I think my follow-up piece (and one by Alana, if she hadn't been banned from writing about it) took the time to get the point of view from [Professor] Quigley and from Brooke Kroeger [Director of the Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute] from NYU — as well as legal scholars.

"I know Adam has strong feelings about the initial story," Glaser continued, "and he obviously thinks that Alana got a lot 'wrong' in that story. But what Adam fails to understand is that Alana has the right to voice her opinion about what went on in her journalism class and that just the exercise of bringing it up for discussion and conversation is worth it — despite his thoughts on the journalism ethics behind running it in the first place."

Here, too, I disagree with Glaser. Taylor should have been upfront with Quigley and her classmates before she published. If Quigley said no, Taylor would have had to make the choice about what to do. She could have taken it to higher-ups at the university, or the school newspaper. She could have published anyway, reported on the professor's stance and reasoning, and challenged the consequences. But she stayed undercover and got a lot of publicity, greatly aided by PBS. Aside from MediaShift's audience, her column was picked up, among others, by the extremely popular Poynter Institute/Romenesko Web site, which is like a Bible for those following the press. And, everyone knows that the (proposed) second story never quite catches up with the first one.

A Violation of PBS Standards?

As for PBS, Penenberg cites a passage from PBS's own editorial standards and policies. "Deception: The credibility of content is jeopardized whenever the audience or a source is duped or feels duped . . . Duping a source would include when a producer misleads an interviewee concerning the purpose of the interview. Honesty, candor, and common courtesy must govern producers' behavior." Since Taylor's post was published on a PBS site, with PBS in the URL, it bears the imprimatur of PBS. Does her post violate PBS's own editorial standards, he asks?

"We also wonder," Penenberg writes, "what responsibility Mr. Glaser bears for Ms. Taylor's post, which ignored numerous accepted journalistic conventions, starting with basic reporting. She never sought other opinions nor asked for comment from the person she was criticizing. She didn't check facts. Does blogging fall under a separate category from journalism? If it falls under the rubric of opinion, to what lengths should a pundit go to seek the facts and offer contrary viewpoints?"

I would also point out that those PBS standards call for giving "individuals or organizations that are the subject of attack or criticism an opportunity to respond."

In 2005, PBS carried out an extensive review of its Editorial Standards and Policies, and one of the main reasons "was to make the Policies less exclusively concerned with television programming and more platform neutral. It was essential," the committee members said, "to recognize the ways in which new delivery systems, such as the Web, have affected and will continue to affect . . . the editorial implications of these changes."

There is no evidence that MediaShift intends to make a habit of other embedded correspondents having their work posted under the same circumstances that Taylor's piece went online. So this may be just an interesting, one-time episode. Blogging is here to stay and is in keeping with the expansive view of freedom of speech that is fundamentally American. It is widespread among college students and used as a teaching tool in some classes. MediaShift and Glaser are, as I said earlier, on the frontline of the digital revolution and it is, in one sense, fitting that this particular episode and discussion unfolded there.

But the PBS imprimatur on this online feature takes it out of the realm of what one ordinarily considers individual blogging. This was an assignment for a very large public service, and I do think that in this instance this posting did not meet PBS standards. There is no way that Taylor's posting would have appeared as a PBS television segment or NPR broadcast without additional comment and reporting, and so PBS needs to look into this and perhaps come up with a more refined set of guidelines that cover these new situations if they are going to lend their logo and PBS.org link to them. NYU probably needs to do the same thing.

Alaska Governor and Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin was the focus of a lot of the messages in the Ombudsman's Mailbag this week, but not because of anything she had said or done. Rather, it was about an unscripted, political wisecrack about her made during a live PBS fund-raising pledge program, and an online poll about her on the weekly public affairs program NOW.

One was a mistake and the other perfectly reasonable, in my view. Aside from a sampling of letters printed below about both episodes, program officials also offer their responses.

Political wisecracking is pretty widespread these days, and it has always been part of our open culture. But doing so on a PBS pledge drive program aimed at gathering financial support from the citizenry for public broadcasting is just plain stupid, and contradictory to the purpose and credibility of PBS.

According to Joseph Campbell, vice president of fundraising programs, here's what happened:

"During the broadcast of 'The 60s Live!: My Generation, My Music,' a special featuring Eric Burdon (of the Animals), the Mamas and the Papas, Roger McGuinn (of the Byrds) and others, celebrity host Mike Farrell made an unscripted remark regarding the presidency of the United States. Mr. Farrell's spontaneous comment was entirely unplanned and does not represent the views of PBS, its employees or its member stations."

Campbell explained that, aside from performance clips by many stars of the 60s and pledge breaks featuring station-produced testimonials, a number of celebrities appeared live, including Farrell. "He made the comment live and gave us no indication of his intentions. Immediately after he went off the air he was confronted about his comments and promised that he would stay 'on script' for the remainder of the telecast, and did."

The exact exchange is as follows:

While Farrell is introducing Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and Papas, Phillips says: "People may even know us as boyfriend and girlfriend from (the TV show) 'Providence.'" Then Farrell says: "'Providence' that's right. Now I've been thinking about the fact that with all your qualities and the fact that you don't know anything about economics or foreign policy that you could be in line for the Presidency!"

Here Are Some of the Letters

You guys have a funny way of asking for people to donate to public television by having Mike Farrell make bad jokes about Sarah Palin during fund raiser Sunday night. Bad move.

David Mackey, Livonia, MI

On Sunday, the 14th, in the afternoon, you had a pledge drive hosted by Mike Farrell. He made a rude and vicious comment regarding Gov. Sarah Palin. Because of that I will not be donating to PBS this year. I would appreciate it if PBS would apologize for his comment and please keep him off of your pledge drives from now on.

Jose Narof, Glendale, CA

Having Mike Farrell supporting PBS fund raising is very appropriate. Having him take a political shot at one of the candidates during that fund raising is NOT.

Tony Bruno, Spring City, PA

I like the 60's music telethon. I thought about donating, then I heard Mike Farrell. When he apologizes about the comment geared toward Gov. Palin then I may donate. This should not be for political issues. This is for the love of the music.

Union Springs, AL

I love some of the programming you put on the air and would donate but when I hear Mike Farrell making jokes about Sarah Palin I don't feel like sending my money to your station.

Sean Breslin, Anaheim, CA

I was recently watching the fund raiser on our local PBS station here in Phoenix. While the liberal bent of PBS is quite obvious, one would think that, at least for the fund raising activities, they might try to look non-partisan. No such luck.

Scottsdale, AZ

About that Poll

The poll question first appeared two weeks ago (Sept. 5) on NOW on PBS' Web site and asked: "Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?" Scores of viewers wrote to me to criticize this, seeing it as liberal bias on the part of PBS and NOW and also asking why the program didn't also ask if Sen. Barack Obama was qualified to be president of the United States.

A lengthy response follows from John Siceloff, executive producer of NOW, along with a sampling of letters from critical viewers.

But first, I'm with Siceloff on this one. NOW does lots of online polling and I think the questions stand the test of breadth and fairness. In this case, it seems to me to be a reasonable question to ask. Gov. Palin clearly was largely unknown to the vast majority of Americans at the time of the Republican National Convention. She has now been on the national scene for a matter of weeks, has been largely shielded from questioning by the press with the exception of one major broadcast TV interview aired thus far, and is indeed a heartbeat away from becoming president should she be elected and something happens to Sen. John McCain, who, at 72, would be the oldest person ever elected to the presidency.

As for Obama, he announced his candidacy in February 2007, received more than 17 million votes during the primary campaign, won 18 states in those primaries and 13 others where there were caucuses, and has been in scores of candidate debates and press interviews. So a large number of people have already stated that they think he is qualified, but we will only know on Election Day if that is more or less than think McCain is better qualified.

Here Are the Letters

I am once again aghast and stunned that the PBS would be so involved in politics that they actually circulated the "is Sarah Palin qualified to be Vice President" poll. How dare you use federally subsidized taxpayer platform for your own political ambitions: have you know shame?

You code of ethics mentions a "neutral platform" and that means you do not have the right to back a candidate. The poll regarding the qualifications of Sarah Palin would only be put out by a biased, liberal attack apparatus: Everybody else knows that she is well enough qualified to be President, far far more than Obama. It is a moot point and undebateable fact that Obama is not qualified by experience, background or character to be President; yet you have the audacity to question whether the sitting governor of the State of Alaska is qualified.

The mere asking of the question is an unethical violation of your own "neutrality" status. As for me; Every night I pray to God that Obama does not reside at the White House.

James Steven Slater, Fort Worth, TX

If you are going to do a poll asking if Sarah Palin is qualified to be vp, why are you not giving Joe Biden the same equal treatment? If the country really knew the truth about Biden, he would be thrown off the ticket.

Paul Hamby, Maysville, MO

Perhaps I missed the poll asking whether Barack Obama is qualified to be President of the United States! I am absolutely disgusted that you, once again, show your blatant liberal bias and ask if Governor Palin is qualified to be Vice President, ignoring the fact that she has more executive experience than all three other nominees. Because you are supported, in part, by U.S tax dollars, you should be ashamed that you do not fairly represent both sides of the aisle in either you're programming or, obviously tainted, polling! Shame on you and you're network, be fully aware that was the last straw and I will forever resist any temptation to financially support you're liberal agenda.

Gary Buck, Woodstock, GA

I voted in the poll asking is Sarah Palin ready to be vice-president, I have not seen a poll asking if Obama is ready to be President.

Patricia Evans, Stockbridge, GA

I firmly object to your poll question regarding whether Sarah Palin is qualified to run for Vice-President. If you want to know what people think about this issue, in all fairness, you should also ask whether Barack Obama is qualified to run for President. When you have a one-sided poll like this, it shows bias.

Carol Stockstell, Yucca Valley, CA

If PBS is going to poll the populous on Ms Palin's qualifications as Vice President, it seems to me you ought to have a poll on Mr Obama's qualifications as President. His qualifications are no more impressive than hers.

Lawrence LeMieux, Clayton, OH

This is in reference to a PBS Pole that asks, "Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?" I get the idea for the pole, but . . . aren't you asking the wrong question? Since the qualifications according to the Constitution state, "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.

Therefore, the Vice-President must be constitutionally eligible for the Presidency. These requirements are that they must be a natural born citizen of the United States, that they be no less than thirty five years old, and that they have been a resident of the United States for at least fourteen years."

Is PBS requesting its viewers to vote on whether or not Mrs. Palin's meets these qualifications? Anyone that meets the above requirements is 'qualified' to be the Vice President. So, therefore the pole should be 100% yes, unless anyone can prove otherwise. Isn't the real question, Do you think Sarah Palin will make a good Vice President of the United States? I'm voting 'yes' — I think Sarah Palin is qualified to be the Vice President of the United States. Hey . . . I'm qualified too, but I don't think I would be as good a VP as Sarah Palin.

Huntersville, NC

I found today's poll question "Is Sarah Palin qualified to be vice-president?" very interesting in that I have seen no poll in the same vane regarding Senators Obama and Biden's quals for their bids. I realize that the subject is subjective, at best, however, viewing it from an objective standpoint, her qualifications as a governmental executive far exceed Sen. Biden's total lack of experience. Legislative does not equal executive.

Fran Marcoux, Seeley Lake, MT

NOW's John Siceloff Responds

"I'm writing in response to questions raised about a poll on NOW on PBS' website which asks the question, 'Do you think Sarah Palin is qualified to serve as Vice President of the United States?' The poll has generated enormous interest. In fact today (Thursday, Sept. 18), the poll is 'the most visited site' in the PBS universe. As of this morning, there have been over 1.5 million votes." Of those who have participated, 40% voted yes, 52% voted no, and 6% voted not sure.

"I want to address the issue of bias, and also provide information about other election materials that we have on our website. We use online polls frequently. They are part of the 'lean-forward' experience that we seek to engender on the NOW website. The polls are connected to the news, and solicit opinion from our web users about what they think. This poll appeared the week of the Republican National Convention, when Sarah Palin was nominated, and it was designed to ask a major question that emerged from the events of the RNC. Even a number of conservatives raised the issue of Palin's qualifications, for example the New York Times' David Brooks.

"It's essential to note that at the same time we posted our own exclusive interview with Sarah Palin. Maria Hinojosa had interviewed her in December 2007 as part of our investigation into corruption in Alaskan politics. So, when Palin was nominated, we pulled out the Palin portions of that piece and posted it online as 'Meet Sarah Palin.' You'll see that it provides a very balanced portrait of this person whom most Americans had never heard of.

"We have used polls on our website since spring 2006. Each poll consists of a single question. Each week we ask about something that is in the news, and being discussed and debated around the country. In this election year, most of the questions have to do with politics. The poll questions are often tied to our broadcast story. We ask questions about Democrats, about Republicans, about third party candidates, and about social issues. We take care to make sure that the wording of the question is not leading or biased. Our choices are based on what we see as newsworthy each week. In the case of the Palin poll, that was a question that arose during the Republican convention. Our question during the Democratic convention was not, 'Is Obama qualified to be president?' (Democratic primary voters had been answering that question for months). It was: 'Did the Democratic Convention succeed in unifying the party?' because that was, in our view, a major issue during the convention. But we have indeed asked searching questions about Senator Obama — earlier this year, we asked about one of the most difficult issues he faced during the primary fight: 'How would you rate Obama's handling of the Rev. Wright controversy?' Our goal is overall balance, across many pieces of content online and on broadcast. I want to point out that the NOW Palin poll has attracted huge interest from both liberal and conservative blogs."

All the lashing out over politics makes an ombudsman yearn for the good old days of controversial documentaries like "The Armenian Genocide" or "The Mormons" just to change the subject once in a while. But that doesn't seem likely, at least for a while. So what follows, once again, is a representative sampling of what viewers have been saying during the past week about how the most exciting election campaign in a long time is being covered and presented.

But first, some thoughts from where I sit that tie some of the subjects below at least loosely together.

The Segments We Love to Hate

The first two groups of letters are about a common theme that comes up frequently and seems to drive a fair number of people on both sides of the political aisle nuts; me, included, at times. That is the classic NewsHour segment in which one of the correspondents conducts a discussion about the campaign or an issue with representatives or partisans of each side. This is, perhaps, the purest form of "balanced" news coverage but it can leave the audience, or at least some of them, bewildered, angry and frustrated at what is perceived as useless charges and counter-charges that leave one no closer to the truth. It is during this type of encounter that the interviewer is crucial, either through questioning or use of background and context, to give the viewer at least some sense of where the facts point.

The first group of letters focus on a segment aired on the Sept. 10 NewsHour in which participants battled about the McCain and Obama positions on education reform. There were many more letters than those posted below. In one exchange, the two campaign advisers were asked by correspondent Gwen Ifill about a McCain television ad that talks about "Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners." The dueling advisers traded sharp blows about this description and viewers, properly in my view, criticized the moderator for not presenting available, factual information about Obama's role that could have clarified this exchange. Fact-checking operations at The Washington Post and the McClatchy newspapers both concluded that the McCain charges misrepresented Obama's record on this and were "deliberately misleading," according to the McClatchy reporter.

On the other hand, this battle over the campaign ad was only a brief part of the segment, and on other matters, Ifill provided very useful summaries on where the candidates stand on aspects of the education reform issue.

And Then They Wrote . . .

The second group of letters deals with a segment aired on Sept. 5, moderated by NewsHour correspondent Judy Woodruff, about the role and concerns of women voters. One guest was a Republican strategist who is president of a public opinion research firm and who does polling for McCain. The other guest does polling for Democrats but is not an adviser to the Obama campaign. The complaint here, totally understandable, is that what viewers heard were numbers, focus group reactions and analysis from the Democratic pollster and very clear partisan campaign pitches from the Republican adviser, especially about how much adding Gov. Sarah Palin to the ticket "has really helped us with female voters."

It is not unusual for viewers to complain about sometimes mismatched guests. In fairness to the NewsHour, this is always something of a gamble because you never know for sure what someone is going to say. In this case, two pollsters with no campaign advisory role would have been better.

And a Zinger from Zurawik

Finally, there was an interesting blog posting on The Baltimore Sun site this week by TV critic David Zurawik that clearly must have been well-read within PBS. It took a hard shot at Bill Moyers and questioned a string of promotional messages that PBS has been broadcasting touting the strength of its electoral coverage and many of its marquee journalists.

Here is some of what Zurawik had to say:

"I have been troubled during the year by PBS promotional messages for its election coverage that groups Moyers with Jim Lehrer, Gwen Ifill and other PBS journalists. Lehrer is the dean of network anchors, and he personifies the best of a journalism built on presenting verified facts along with informed and balanced discussion to viewers in hopes that they will be able to make solid decisions about their lives. Ditto for Ifill.

"Like Olbermann and Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, Moyers is a political ideologue and propagandist. He is not a journalist. I spent a lot of time with him when I profiled him for Esquire magazine in 1989, and in 19 years, he has only become more political. That's okay, but PBS of all news organizations should not be presenting him as a journalist — especially at this time when the nation is coming to public television for information on the most important vote many of us will cast in our lifetimes."

I also happened to catch one or two of these promotions recently and they also caught my eye and made me wonder about a couple of things. On one hand, the ones I saw were snappy and smart efforts by PBS to showcase many of its star performers at a time when people are paying special attention. The ones I saw featured Lehrer, Ifill, Woodruff and Ray Suarez, also of the NewsHour, plus David Brancaccio of NOW, talk show host Tavis Smiley and Moyers. It seems that all TV networks — broadcast and cable — do such things from time to time.

But being a close observer of PBS, the promos also raised questions in my mind. One was whether Moyers and Smiley would have special roles in election coverage beyond their own regular programs, and whether some new special election coverage was planned in which all of them would be involved. And I, too, also wondered about lumping Lehrer and his crew, with Smiley and Moyers, in particular, because they have very different programs and approaches to the news.

I asked John Boland, Chief Content Officer at PBS, about this and he said that the promotions do not mean that Moyers and others will be part of election coverage beyond their own programs and there are no election specials in which Moyers joins forces with the NewsHour. He said the promos were produced by PBS, were discussed with program producers, and that the purpose "is to communicate the variety of PBS' election coverage. To that end, we produced 6 on-air promos for the campaign — one each for Bill Moyers Journal, The NewsHour, NOW on PBS, Tavis Smiley and Washington Week, plus one to represent the collective PBS election coverage."

When I asked, "Did it occur (to you) that you were mixing the NewsHour and its straight news image with other personalities, especially Moyers, who are much more controversial?" Boland said: "Among the spots produced for the campaign, one spot includes multiple programs and their on-air personnel. The purpose of this spot is to illustrate the variety of PBS' election coverage."

Lehrer is, as Zurawik suggests, not just the dean of network anchors but is also the personification of straightforward presentation of news and resists anything that even resembles taking a position. Moyers is hard to categorize. I have written several columns about his Journal, most of them critical of one segment or another. But Moyers, as I have also said, also presents a vast array of interviews and issues that are important, thought-provoking and deserving of being aired but would likely not have a prayer anywhere else on television. He also has guests such as political scholar Kathleen Hall Jamieson who has been on frequently lately and who astutely analyzes all sides.

So while I think that Moyers' editorial approach is indeed open to criticism — and gets a lot of it — and that it often slides from reporting to advocacy, that his commentary is frequently fact-based and his interviews are often compelling and illuminating. I do not know Moyers personally and I don't share Zurawik's harsh judgment. But I do think it is a mistake to produce promotions that have Jim Lehrer start a sentence and Bill Moyers finish it. That would not happen except in a PBS commercial.

Here Are the Letters

Your program tonight (9/10/08) on the education positions of Obama and McCain was uninformative to say the least. Having two biased campaign operatives each saying the other is lying is an insult to the viewer. Why should I spend time listing to the NewsHour when I end up having to go elsewhere to research campaign issues? Like on the Broadcast News, the tit-for-tat format is a turn-off. Is it any wonder many potential voters stay home on Election Day?

Richard Lundgren, Jacksonville, FL

I just finished watching Jim Lehrer NewsHour, which is normally my favorite TV show (actually one of the few that I watch). But tonight it seemed to me that PBS fell short of its responsibility. Gwen Ifill interviewed surrogates of the Obama and McCain campaigns on the topic of education. The two women made diametrically opposed statements (Obama supported comprehensive sex education for five year olds vs. Obama supported legislation to enable five year olds to defend themselves against sexual predators). In that kind of conflict — not just differences of opinion but different statements of facts — it seems to me that good reporting would dictate that you (Gwen, in this case) tell viewers what the law actually says. A similar disagreement between the two surrogates on this show was whether John McCain voted to do away with the Department of Education or not. What good does it do to let campaign operatives talk past each other, if reporters don't supply some facts? Tonight's show was not the first time I've experienced this kind of dissatisfaction, but because it was particularly blatant tonight, I was moved to send this e-mail.

Lyn Houk, Houston, TX

I wish that PBS would come back to its viewers regularly and tell us which guests are lying to us or significantly stretching the truth. I turn to PBS for honest reporting and so often I end up listening to more rhetoric from the guests. The latest example is from tonight's news (9/10/08). The two guests discussing the presidential race claimed the other was lying about Obama's stance on sex education for children. PBS should know the truth and be ready to advise us as such during these interviews, or at least come back and tell us the truth the next night or perhaps weekly. I turn to the news so that I do not have to research every issue on my own. Overall, I think PBS does a fabulous job and I plan to keep watching, but please help combat the untrue rhetoric and help us know the truth so we can evaluate the candidates on their merit! Thanks for listening!

D Bilski, Atlanta, GA

Tonight on the NewsHour a McCain supporter and an Obama supporter argued about the candidates' perspectives on education in general and Obama's support of a sex education bill in Illinois specifically. The McCain supporter said she had read the bill, and it did in fact go far beyond what Obama says it did (teaching young children to avoid sexual predators). I can't find the bill on line, but I've seen lots of articles saying that McCain is wrong. The reporter (Ifill I think) should have read the bill before hand so she could say what was in the bill and not just rely on (apparently) misleading information. It would be a good thing to do now and clarify. If McCain's people are lying (or Obama's people), the NewsHour should say so.

Barbara McKinney, Bloomington, IN

I am delighted to find PBS using an ombudsman. I should have expected that from you. Thanks for this additional layer of integrity. Here is my problem. I have been watching PBS news with Jim Lehrer for about a year now. Something has been bothering me for most of that time, and not just about the campaign coverage, but about most controversial issues you discuss in depth. Tonight's broadcast (9-10-08) about the candidates' position on education policy just pushed me over the edge.

Why is it considered news to simply put on partisan representatives of both positions to parrot what the candidates (or other actors) are saying? We already heard that in your lead-off piece, and over and over again in fact, in the nasty little advertisements and sound bites they are doing. Wouldn't "news" be to cut through these partisan, dreary spins, stop giving them unpaid, but hugely influential prime time to reiterate their spins (which some of us aren't hesitant to call lies), and tell us instead how the candidates' positions compare based on your own independent analysis instead of their gleeful reiterations?

K.D. McCleave, Madison, WI

TV journalism is currently pathetic and PBS is the one last hope for a 4th estate that helps us understand things. Thinking here of the political candidates. However, the evening news falls far short when you have the candidates' aides and advisors on. It is no better than listening to dueling commercials because your reporters do not press for answers that give information.

Last night a case in point. Gwen Ifill had the education advisors for both Pres. candidates. The first question was whether Obama had advocated sex education for kindergartners. Obama's advisor said, "Absolutely not." McCain's advisor said, "He certainly did." It seemed that that might be the time for a follow-up. Like — be specific, what bill, etc. But, no; Gwen went on to other items.

Later, the question was about which candidate supported funding for education. McCain was accused of always voting against and defended as always supporting. Again, time for a follow-up — so that the viewing audience would have more information than the "she said, she said" bashing (polite, of course) that was being offered. What bills, offering what kind of support, did who support when, etc. Alas, none of that.

Dale Goldsmith, Amarillo, TX

Pollsters or Promoters?

Watching the NewsHour on Sept. 5, I was appalled by the segment Judy Woodruff hosted with Ms. Greenberg and Linda Divall. Divall had almost no actual research to report, but plenty of personal advocacy to do. Her presentation was completely unenlightening as she promoted the McCain ticket as baldly as any campaign operative, without bringing any actual data to the table. Ms. Greenberg, on the other hand, looked pained by the unprofessionalism of her supposed peer, as she herself stuck to commenting on what was actually supported by research and rightly avoided making unsupported predictions about what women are going to do in this election. Ms. Woodruff was no help in reigning in Divall's advocacy of her candidate. To Woodruff's promise that we'll be seeing more of this shameless researcher I say Please, No! Really, the discussion was embarrassing to watch.

Mary Long, San Francisco, CA

I just finished watching the segment on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer containing the interview with the two pollsters, one Democratic and one Republican. In response to the questions put to her, the Democratic pollster cited the results of the polls and focus groups her organization conducted. However, the Republican pollster responding almost every time with a straight quote from the Republican Party line, rather than citing the results of any polls or focus groups conducted. Furthermore, the interviewer did not follow up by asking the Republican pollster to cite any information to back up her claims. I feel that this is unprofessional journalism on public display.

Patrick Poulson, Nevada City, CA

I was just watching Judy Woodruff interview two pollsters on 'The NewsHour'. I give her credit for identifying one as working for the McCain campaign while the other was a 'Democratic' pollster not advising any campaign. Having made this fact known it was still quite disconcerting seeing the McCain woman answering Ms. Woodruff's questions on polling data with what were either her own personal opinions, or else GOP talking points.

This woman continually made statements like "I think Ms Palin has energized the . . . contest" (a paraphrase, I didn't take the dictation). Asked for polling data, she mostly stuck to these opinions. This was not professional on the pollster's part, unless her advisory relation to the McCain campaign dictates that her public pronouncements be opinions and not data. Worse, an experienced journalist like Ms. Woodruff continually allowed these statements. When the pollster says "I think this" and "I think that" the job of the journalist should be to politely as possible say "We're not asking you what you think, we're asking about the data you've found." But she repeatedly failed to do this.

Bronx, NY

More on the Goodman Arrest

The aggregated ratio of liberal to non-liberal reporters on PBS on Friday, September 5 — on The NewsHour, Bill Moyers, Washington Week, NOW, Tavis Smiley, and Charlie Rose — was an embarrassment, even for PBS. Also, why did David Brancaccio present Amy Goodman's allegations completely unchallenged?

N Reinhold, L.A. County, CA

NOW's host and senior editor, David Brancaccio, responds:

"The note you received is right to point out that there is much more to be said about this incident and my team at NOW will continue to keep a close eye on developments."

I was very impressed by your coverage of the two conventions, especially the follow up by the commentators afterwards. The great disappointment I had was that you did not report in depth of the arrest of protestors outside the Republican convention, especially of Amy Goodman and her pressmen — who were assaulted and injured illegally. This lack of coverage only convinces the police and FBI to further impinge on our rights. It is very serious and definitely must be exposed in major TV, not just on the Internet. I, who count on your coverage, was very disappointed in this omission and hope you will mention it this coming week in your news broadcasts.

Gainesville, FL

We expect Amy Goodman to run through a line of riot police hoping to be filmed as a victim of police brutality. We expect the St. Paul riot squad to handcuff and charge anyone who tries to run through their line they are charged with defending, regardless of the tag on her neck or the story she shouts at the police. We do not expect PBS to be the willing dupe of Goodman's martyr theatrics, airing her cameraman's footage and fawning over her free speech rants. Please do not further morph into a forum for lunatic lefties.

Mark Techler, Belleair, FL

Having watched many hours of Gwen Ifill's reporting, the thing that made me maddest tonight was reading your column that included all the insulting letters about Gwen. She's fantastic day in and day out. I did think that one of the evenings late at night for a short interval she was not at her best, but the entire staff looked exhausted and sleepless. So I'm appalled at the various attacks on Ifill, a first rate reporter nearly all the time. Makes me think there's still racism not far under the surface!

Marjorie Shultz, Richmond, CA

Of all the stations who don't even try to hide their preference for president, I'm surprised at PBS and expected more from your station. I've read some of the comments from other viewers and your response that you feel differently and have decided to defend your analysts instead of being fair to half your audience with coverage of both conventions with balance. I really didn't see fair responses for the Republicans and even when your analysts were doing their best to say something nice about the Republicans, they still managed to sneak in negativity, as if we didn't notice. You can disagree all you want, but you're obviously looking at your coverage through rose colored glasses. I can't watch PBS anymore, because your station has lowered its standards to this kind of coverage which makes you equal with NBC, CBS and ABC. I have Charlie Rose on now whose choice of guest show how biased he is also. I wish the media could be more objective, but I know that those days are gone.

Marilyn T, Boardman, OH

There's not a week that goes by that I don't thank God for PBS. As a former Mathematics teacher and now a physician I place a very high value on the truth and the search for it. I was both surprised and disappointed to read some of the nasty comments expressed by some viewers. Again and again, I am struck by the great pains PBS goes through to bring the news to the public in a balanced way.

James M. Petko, Arlington, VA

I consider my self an Independent and have voted for both Republicans and Democrats, depending on the circumstances at the time. I really want and need to hear both sides of issues in order to decide which way my vote should go. Though PBS has been criticized for many years as being "liberal," I have found C-Span and PBS to be the only TV sources of information with any legitimate claim to fair, even-handed, comprehensive coverage of political issues. If there is any commercial TV program that does not present an unabashedly biased viewpoint, I cannot find it among the programs available to me. I am grateful to PBS for giving me access to information and letting me make up my own mind. Please keep up the good work.

Cobbs Creek, VA

I am concerned that when Andy Kohut is interviewed on the PBS NewsHour for political polling results the question of the reliability of his data is never raised. Why, given the increasing exclusive use of cell phones among young adults who are more likely to vote as Democrats? And how to account for the many cell phone users who turn their phones off when not in use?

Lee Lybarger, Delaware, OH

I am a big supporter of PBS and most of its programs. I greatly admire and respect Jim Lehrer and usually Gwen Ifill, however, I am very troubled by an attempt to group Bill Moyers with these PBS journalists. He is obviously very biased in his coverage and his addition to the discussion detracts from the journalist integrity. I have no problem with him appearing as a Democratic/Liberal commentator, but to pretend he is an unbiased journalist is frankly insulting to the American people.

Cody O, Marina, CA

As was the case last week, a sizeable representative sampling of the letters is printed below. Many of them express reactions to the proceedings Wednesday evening with the introduction and speech, watched by a huge national television audience, of the surprise vice-presidential nominee, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. The letters are offered without comment with a couple of exceptions.

Some of the letters contain personal attacks on the performance of NewsHour senior correspondent Gwen Ifill and regular commentator Mark Shields. I don't agree with these assessments. Reporters are there to ask questions and report. That's what they do. That's how we, as consumers of news, find out things. Shields is there, along with David Brooks, to analyze as they see things.

Some of the comments about Ifill deal with how she appeared on screen when asked by Lehrer to sum up the reaction on the convention floor after the powerful speech delivered by Palin. I don't know whether Ifill was tired after a long night, or simply trying to talk over very loud noise and music in the background, or struggling to hold her earpiece in place the whole time. But she clearly reported that delegates "exploded with excitement" over Palin's speech and that they "couldn't have been happier." Apparently, that's not enough for some viewers. You have to smile and reflect enthusiasm in order to avoid being painted as biased.

Ifill, who played a solid, in my view, and central role in PBS coverage of both conventions, will be the moderator of the vice-presidential debate on Oct. 2 which now promises to be one of the most heavily watched events of this long campaign season. The Washington Post published this article about her on Thursday.

On the other hand, there are a handful of other letters in this mailbag criticizing a segment Ifill moderated Thursday evening in which three Republicans were asked about their reactions to the speech of Palin the night before. As a panel, this was totally predictable and next to useless. It would clearly have benefited from some Democratic or independent participant. I have no idea who ordered this up and picked the participants, but it wasn't surprising that it drew some criticism. There was also an Ifill-run panel during the Democratic convention with two Democrats who know Sen. Joe Biden well and were assessing his role as he was about to accept the vice-presidential nomination. This was before his speech and was mostly about his career, and Ifill asked challenging questions.

As for Shields, he was sharply criticized by some for analyzing the tensions that must have accompanied Palin's decision to accept Sen. John McCain's offer knowing, before it was made public, that her unwed, teenage daughter would be thrust into the spotlight because of her pregnancy. I thought Shields actually handled his point of view quite well, with context and compassion but with a clear understanding that there was no way in the world that this development was not going to be a major front-page story in practically every newspaper in the country. Palin, herself, has used her family effectively in telling her story. So if you can point out that your son and nephew joined the Army and the son is headed to Iraq, you can't expect that the unmarried daughter's newly revealed pregnancy is somehow not to be reported on by the press and commented upon.

Another interesting point in some of the letters is the lack of some independent, timely fact-checking mechanism for speeches at both conventions. There might have been some of that and I might have missed it, but if it was there it didn't seem to register.

Here Are the Letters

Following the speeches on Wednesday evening, when the perspective shifted to Gwen Ifill on the convention floor, her disgust with the proceedings was barely concealed and her comments clearly defined her bias towards Obama and the Democrats. If a professional news person cannot maintain at least a surface level of objectivity then perhaps she should seek employment at CNN or MSNBC who make no pretense at being unbiased. Public Television should represent the American public, no matter what their political position is, and public TV more than any other outlet should be unbiased and objective. Very disappointing.

Christopher Spilker, Royal Oak, MI

I was appalled by Gwen Ifill's commentary directly following Gov. Sarah Palin's speech. Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust. Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance. I am disappointed in Ms. Ifill's complete disregard for journalistic objectivity. I have come to expect more from PBS.

Brian Meyers, Granby, CT

PBS's coverage this week of the RNC has been a continued decline, and clearly biased view from those within PBS who most definitely want to "convince" the public that the RNC has nothing to say. The absolute horrible comments and appearance from Gwen Ifill after Sarah Palin's speech last night should be an embarrassment for PBS. She looked clearly disappointed, she appeared bothered and could not come up with one positive or objective comment.

Pittsburgh, PA

I am shocked at questioning by Gwen Ifill on the MacNeil/Lehrer Report about whether Sarah Palin can be both a VP and a mother. That question is so far out of line it's in the stratosphere. Gwen Ifill attempted to justify the question by saying Palin said she was a hockey mom. Lame, and she knows it. AND your viewers know it.

Questions about Palin's experience are obviously OK, but whether she should run as VP with a family? Was Barack asked that question? I think not! I expect that line of questioning from NBC, but not PBS. I have been a MacNeil/Lehrer viewer for years and until this evening always thought the program's staff were professionals. Now I'm not so sure. That line of questioning should never have happened. Once it did, it should have been on the floor of the cutting room. I understand you want to elect Obama, but interviews like that lose votes for Obama. You all could use a week off for ethics training.

Dennis Hughes, St. Petersburg, FL

And About That Like-Minded Panel . . .

Why did Gwen Ifill have NO Democratic representatives on her interview this evening (Thursday) regarding Palin. She had 3 Republicans on???????? Is this "balanced"?????

Albany, CA

The guests for last night's discussion of Sarah Palin were, as Gwen Ifill described them: "Linda Lingle, the governor of Hawaii, who introduced Palin last night, Michael Gerson, who was chief speechwriter for President Bush, and Barbara Comstock, who served as a senior adviser to Mitt Romney during his presidential campaign."

Not one detached observer. Why? Not a single critic? Why? No one to mention Palin's falsehoods/lies? Why? Is this journalism? After Obama picked Biden, did the NewsHour allow him to be assessed only by his fans and/or party hacks (I don't know — but more shame on the NewsHour if the answer is yes)? Or am I missing something in all of this?

Morton Mintz, Washington, DC

Tonight Gwen Ifill failed us once again. We were treated to an Academy Award interview. Three Republicans celebrated Palin's performance. I would hope that not even Ifill was surprised that they loved Plain's speech and settled the question of qualification once and for all. Journalism endorsed partisan view by providing a forum and silently endorsed their conclusions. You may have had a similar self congratulatory panel at the Democratic convention. I don't member one. That would not justify this one, it would underscore failing the American public.

You appear to be cowed by Republicans threatening accusations of sexism or classism if Palin is criticized at all. We have to accept as truth that all experience is equal. We have to distort our fundamental belief in the equality of humans to transpose it to read all experience is equal. We are asked to accept that "red meat" one-liners are equivalent to statesmanship. Take back your responsibility to probe deeper. It is not sufficient to accept the standards set by the political parties, and assess whether they have lived up to their own standards. You have to challenge the validity of their standards. You have to make them reach for more.

Peter Pufall, Northampton, MA

Just what is the "Public" to get from interviewing Republican delegates about Palin? Please, be a little objective and insightful.

Endicott, NY

Checking for 'Errors,' Faces in the Crowd, and Teleprompters

PBS's reporters and analysts made some serious errors of omission following Sarah Palin's speech Wednesday night. First, she distorted much of what Obama and Biden have been saying, especially about tax and energy policies. Second, she asserted that Al Qaeda operatives were still intent on inflicting damage on the United States but Obama was more worried about reading them their rights. I find it truly frightening that a potential President would disparage someone for upholding due process and the Constitution, and, as a journalist, I am dismayed that seemingly no one in the press called attention to the issue.

Richard Knee, San Francisco, CA

I am shocked that none of the media outlets I've viewed today (short of NPR) have fact-checked Palin's speech. There were so many misrepresentations it's stunning, and to have no one other than NPR challenge them makes me wonder if the "sexism" label is cowing other media.

St. Paul, MN

Thank you for unbiased commentary on both the Republican & Democratic Nominating Conventions. Between your program and Charlie Rose, I was able to hear clear, concise commentary about the speakers and direction of the candidates. What was missing from your coverage: Yelling, belittling interviewees, and several pundits talking at the same time. Keep up the good work.

April Azary Thomas, Ashland, OR

Please, during your coverage of the Republican Convention, stop picking out the handful of African American and Asian American attendees and showing them on television. This practice is condescending and, frankly, racist. I could not help but notice that during Rudy Giuliani's speech, you showed the same six black people and the same two Asians several times. What could possibly justify such condescension? Shame on your pandering.

Jim Salvucci, Baltimore, MD

Very poor shots of the audience for the Republican convention. You are not picking the best to show the Nation (or picking the worst for some reason???).

Eau Claire, WI

My wife and I have been watching the RNC convention and, repeatedly, the PBS cameramen have been showing Gov. Palin's notes on the teleprompter. We have never seen this before in any speech given by a political candidate. We believe this is unfair and possibly deliberately undermining of Gov. Palin's speech, giving the impression that Gov. Palin is having her speech given to her buy others instead of her own words. We have never seen this kind of bias on PBS — PBS is our ONLY source of news, we have no cable, because we trust the reporting of PBS, but this is really an unfair and unethical error on the part of PBS. This did not occur with Gov. Huckabee, Mayor Giuliani, or any other speaker of the evening. Why with Gov. Palin alone? We are deeply distressed and disappointed and expect an explanation from PBS.

Carl & Jennifer Findley, Chicago, IL

Shields on Palin and Her Daughter

While I have known that my tax dollars supported a "liberal network" most of my life, I was shocked and dismayed by Mark Shields' comment last night about Gov. Palin. Michael, your network likes to speak of journalistic integrity. Please explain to me where is the integrity in Shields' comment below:

" . . . There is another question though which essentially I've heard expressed here many times today and from calls elsewhere, and that is the decision made by Sarah Palin herself, when knowing her daughter's condition, by accepting John McCain's offer she guaranteed that her daughter would be known globally as the best known 17-year-old, pregnant, unwed teenager in the world, and that decision many people question. And that was a decision that many people questioned. I mean, Republicans, it's not a partisan question. It's just a question of whether in fact family values, and whether family values collide in this case. All candidates — David and I have talked about this — have healthy if not overly healthy ambitions. But there had to be some tension here between the ambition of going on a national ticket, and her love and consideration of her daughter, being known once and for all as 'Aren't you the daughter who was pregnant of the vice presidential candidate in 2008? . . ."

I will not state that I won't ever watch PBS again nor delve into a childish rant, but I assure you that I will not ever watch another news broadcast or coverage of special event like the GOP Convention, if Mr. Shields takes part in the coverage.

Harriman, NY

Mark Shields rebuked the Governor of Alaska, Ms. Palin, for accepting the Republican nomination for VP, stating that, "this guaranteed that her 17 year old daughter's unwed pregnancy would become known world wide." Firstly, Ms. Palin's children are none of Mr. Shields' business. Secondly, how Ms. Palin raises her children are none of his business, and finally his commentary concerning these issues is an invasion of the daughter's privacy, Ms. Palin's privacy, and the kind of smear merchant drivel that has become Mr. Shields' forte.

Toledo, OH

I gave up telling you how biased I think your general coverage is, but with the GOP convention coverage and Gov. Palin's coverage you have HIT A NEW HIGH!!!! FAIRNESS in your programming.

Shirley Martin, Maryland Heights, MO

As ombudsman of PBS could you tell the folks at the NewsHour that they are not supposed to be a substitute for the National Enquirer, CNN or MSNBC. The idea behind PBS, in part, is to be independent and not part of the media herd. Their indulgence in mindless "he said she said" on the vetting "issue" and the pregnancy of the Vice-Presidential nominee's daughter is best left to the commercial networks, they are simply better at it. The NewsHour performance before the Bush speech was well below the low expectations I normally have for "The NewsHour".

Roger Noyes, Rensselaer, NY

HOW CAN YOU LET MARK SHIELDS TRY TO BLAME SARAH PALIN FOR ALL THE MEDIA PUTTING HER DAUGHTER THROUGH THE TABLOID-LIKE CRAP. IT REALLY JUST SHOWS HOW UN-JOURNALISTIC MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF PBS REALLY IS.

W. Mulligan, Owensboro, KY

I am writing in regard to Mark Shields' comments on Palin "choosing ambition over her daughter" as well as his other sexist remarks. I don't see him questioning Obama being able to raise his children and be a father. I didn't see anyone questioning Biden on being able to be a single father and Congressman while he stood next to the hospital bed of his two sons after the automobile accident that injured the sons and killed his wife and daughter.

Nashville, TN

No Coverage of Amy Goodman Arrest

Yesterday (Monday), police in St. Paul arrested several journalists, including Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and an AP photographer as they were covering protests of the Republican National Convention. Amy Goodman and others were released last night, but the story is not over. Why are we not hearing about this on PBS? Information and analysis of is going on outside the Republican convention (especially when it is an assault on freedom of the press) is every bit as important as covering the speeches inside.

Peggy Meinholtz, Missoula, MT

I usually watch PBS for current election issues. Reason — it is the only broadcaster where I cannot guess the political affiliations of the anchors or the commentators. On all other stations their affiliations, and their bias, are transparent. However, what is very transparent even at PBS is the difference between how males and females are treated. In case of Sarah Palin, there is this obsession throughout with the daughter being pregnant, can she do her mothering as a Vice President, her family etc. I interpret that as laziness. It is too much work to dig up her political history and integrity and what her views can do to our country. Why do the hard work? follow the strategy of People magazine, which sells very well. I expect more from PBS. I am waiting for the real news about Sarah.

Easton, PA

We are two professors who watch Lehrer report every night. We tape it, watch it later and focus on our interests. We have, traditionally, really enjoyed watching Shields and Brooks. This weekend we read an article Brooks wrote in the NYT and we thought he was kind of "losing" it. The story was fragmented, very disjointed, very much unlike him. Last night, after Palin, he described the speech as a real winner, "higher than his expectations". Now that, coming from what we believed was a bright man, was a shock. Is he unable to hear and see that it was a Sarah Barracuda speech and not much more? Something has happened to his judgment recently.

Linda Levine, Santa Monica, CA

I feel PBS's reputation as being an objective source of news has been greatly sullied by the coverage of the Republican National Convention. This culminated for me with the repeated camera shots of an anti-McCain protestor in the audience. Once, I could understand. Twice, you're pushing it. Three times (which is what I saw during the coverage of John McCain's speech) and you've become a PR rep for Obama/Biden.

I would love to see you explain this in the light of the advertisements PBS has been running about how seriously PBS takes covering a political convention. As a former journalism student, there is no legitimate reason to have done this, but I will let you make that call and explain it to us.

Thomas Lindaman, Des Moines, IA

(Ombudsman's Note: When a protester, or protesters, show up inside a convention hall and get forcibly escorted out, it is a small bit of news and the cameras are going to follow. That is just how it is and always has been; doesn't matter which party. For one thing, the crowd reacts, and McCain also reacted, and viewers need to know why. These were very minor distractions and, in my view, had no impact on the message of McCain's speech.)

Is PBS 'Outstanding' or 'Biased'?

I have found the PBS coverage of both conventions to be outstanding — thorough, great analysis with a combination of presidential historians, fabulous anchors, and of course, Shields and Brooks, my personal favorites. The fact that you cover 3 hours a day plus a look forward with the NewsHour makes this the station I rely on for my coverage. I consistently come to PBS for my news coverage as I believe it to be the most in-depth and the least biased. Thank you for your continued excellence in covering and discussing the news!

Diane Davidson, Pleasanton, CA

I appreciate your coverage of the RNC in its entirety, but the Shields and Brooks segments sometimes get hard to take. In particular, Mark Shields is no longer a useful addition to any discussion having to do with Republicans. His personal opinion is too far left to be remotely considered "analysis", and, like most liberals, he just can't stop talking. I suggest you send him on over to NBC where he would be a real asset. By the way, there are Republicans who watch PBS and who would appreciate less liberal leanings in your reporting — or doesn't our viewership count?

Cumming, GA

I would have expected more objectivity from PBS and its associates of the DEM & GOP conventions. However, during the DEM convention it was all accolades for the speakers and Obama, but during the GOP convention it's hard to find anyone with anything good to say about McCain and Palin. Looks like PBS has aligned with the mainstream media to elect Obama. Seems PBS has lost its journalistic integrity.

Bill Johnson, Las Vegas, NV

The PBS coverage of the conventions has been extensive and I compliment you on carrying all the speeches, not just prime time. The reporters however are distinctly biased in favor of the Democratic Party in my opinion. Their questions are softball to Democrats and display an agenda when interviewing Republicans.

Baltimore, MD

It is so very obvious that this station is biased. They rudely talked over some of the most moving moments of the Republican Convention, although the Democratic Convention received full coverage of every moment no matter how insignificant. That is disgusting. How unjust . . . how despicable to show such contempt for what you don't agree with.

Ellen Cole, Pompano Beach, FL

I am a conservative who believes the media leans left in the most obvious fashion. After channel flipping during the RNC Convention, I must say that PBS truly does seem to want to offer the facts and let me decide. Having said that, I must admit, I've always thought of public television as just as liberal. Apparently I was wrong.

Valrico, FL

Your coverage of the RNC and DNC is absolutely superior to any other broadcast. Thanks for the good work!

Donna Walters, Chicago, IL

PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer this week was the only broadcast network program to devote all its prime time hours to coverage of the Democratic National Convention in Denver, and it will do the same next week when the Republicans meet in Minneapolis-St. Paul. That coverage generated a heavy flow of mail. What follows is not all of it, but a still sizeable, representative sampling of viewer reaction to how Lehrer and his crew handled things.

First comes mail from viewers who appreciated the coverage throughout the convention. There are lots of them.

If you are a person who takes politics and citizenship seriously and believes that these once-every-four-year gatherings, despite the fluff and theatrics, are of central importance to an informed electorate — and if you don't have or can't afford cable television — then PBS is the only place you can go for coverage of each evening's events in their entirety.

The major commercial broadcast networks — CBS, ABC and NBC — provided only one hour each night of prime time coverage. In contrast, earlier this month NBC provided a zillion hours of Olympics coverage. But the conventions are obviously more boring to commercial broadcasters and the public service obligation to millions of viewers seems to extend for only an hour. Coverage on cable by MSNBC, CNN and Fox has also been much more extensive than the big three networks, and they all continue to grow while the broadcast network audience declines.

If you wanted to see or hear live the speeches of former Vice President Al Gore, or Susan Eisenhower, or Sen. Ted Kennedy, or Sen. John Kerry, or former President Bill Clinton, or some of the many others who had interesting tales to tell or points to make, you were out of luck unless you watched PBS, C-SPAN or the cable nets. This is nothing new. I remember in 2004 when it was also one hour a night for the big three and a keynote speech by an up-and-coming Illinois state legislator, Barack Obama, didn't fit into the major commercial networks' window.

So, I too, applaud PBS's decision to give its viewers a nightly full dose of the event that marks the start of the final leg of the most important thing we do, as a nation, every four years.

After the pats on the back come groups of critical letters: too many white guys, in general, discussing blacks, no women included in the analysis, and too much yakking by analysts generally. There were several letters that took issue with the nightly commentary. From my perspective, this is to be expected. Mark Shields and David Brooks are the regulars on the NewsHour and certainly are to be expected to be part of convention coverage. Brooks, of course, usually provides a more center-right perspective and therefore it is not surprising that at a Democratic convention he will be a target of viewers. I assume Shields will get a similar welcome at the Republican convention. But both of these men are on the program regularly to provide analysis and opinion, and that's what they are supposed to do.

Finally, there are letters that criticize the NewsHour for seeming to be behind the curve, especially Wednesday evening during the state roll call nominating process. This seemed to me to be the program's fault in not clearly explaining the difference between its regular nightly broadcast and its special convention coverage. For example, in some regions, such as the Washington, D.C., area, you can see the NewsHour first at 6 p.m. on Maryland Public Television, and then the same program airs on a different local PBS channel, WETA in nearby Virginia, at 7 p.m. Without any explanation for viewers, it looks as though that second airing is one hour behind the news that has already been unfolding at the convention and live on cable channels. Here are the letters.

The Few, the Proud . . .

Wonderful Democratic convention coverage, so far, including most of the major speeches. Kerry's was . . . kick-ass! And, only PBS had it. Thanks.

Lex Wadelski, Austin, TX

I want to say thank you for the coverage you provided of the Democratic Convention. Without your coverage, the professional journalists, I don't know what our country would do without Public Broadcasting. Thank you.

Mary Hattemer, Blue Ash, OH

First let me express my deep appreciation and gratitude for PBS's airing of NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. He is the living and breathing manifestation of Journalistic Integrity. I write not, however, to pour sincere accolades onto Mr. Lehrer, but to thank PBS for its thorough and unbiased coverage of the DNC 2008 though, tonight (Wednesday), I believe even Jim Lehrer couldn't help but take in the immense enthusiasm radiating from the convention folks). Thank you PBS!!!!!!

Portia Cue, Marietta, GA

Just wanted to thank PBS for actually showing the DNC convention, instead of endless discussions by pundits while important leaders are speaking at the podium. Shame on all the others (CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC, CNN)!

Bob Eckert, Florence, MA

I am so happy with the PBS coverage of the Democratic Convention. As with the NewsHour, Jim Lehrer, Mark Shields, David Brooks, Judy Woodruff, Margaret and Gwen's reporting are a pleasure to listen to. Their non-hysterical reporting as well as the sane format (no commercial interruption) make me wonder how anyone can stand other TV news programming. Thank you for intelligent and excellent coverage.

Rosemary Fischer, Mt. Vernon, NY

I just wanted to say thank you to the powers that be at PBS for the excellent coverage of and commentary related to the DNC. The commentary is insightful and informative, and never cuts into, nor drowns out the actual speeches, allowing me to make up my own mind about their content and delivery. As a teacher in an inner-city, urban high school, PBS was my first choice of channels when assigning my students projects related to the convention, and I have not been disappointed. I will ask them to tune into our local PBS station for my RNC assignments as well. It's good to know where to turn in today's media saturated airwaves. Thank you.

Adina Richman, Dallas, TX

The coverage of the NewsHour tonight (Tuesday) was superior. After many years of flicking the channel, I have should learn to stay on PBS. The best part of the coverage this evening was the economic piece by Paul Solman. Those were real core Americans telling it like it is!

Bob van Kleeck, Binghamton, NY

I watched PBS's coverage of the Democratic Convention because I thought it would have less fluff than the networks. I have to say, though, that I was highly disappointed when PBS cut all but the last few seconds of Montana's Governor Brian Schweitzer's speech (Tuesday). A news professional should have known how great this speech would be if they were following this guy at all. It seems all the networks cut out most or all off the speech because they thought their talking heads were more entertaining. Still Like PBS the best though . . .

R Magnuson, Austin, TX

I want to tell you how much I appreciate your convention coverage. I appreciate the respect you show the speakers by not using their time to show off how erudite the commentators are; how the tone of comments is not usually a put down of the person on the dais, but an opinion which is to be shared and not labeled as truth in capital letters. Also, that when you do cut into a presentation, you make an effort to tape and make available that speaker's remarks. Much different than many of the other stations — a heartfelt THANK YOU!

Coral Gables, FL

And the Beat Goes on . . .

I started last evening (Monday) watching the MSNBC coverage of the DNC. That lasted about 1/2 hour. I quickly switched to my local PBS channel (44 — WGBX Boston). On such an historic evening, PBS allowed Jesse Jackson Jr., Barack Obama's sister and Jimmy Carter's video to come into my home. I was given the opportunity to view the ENTIRE evening. I was given the opportunity to make my own judgment. I cannot thank you all enough.

Jane Wolf, Gloucester, MA

I sincerely appreciate your coverage of the DNC. I appreciate that you provide fair and detailed analysis after each and every speech. After the election, I will be supporting PBS with a monetary contribution. Thank you for being true journalist and Not a special interest media outlet like CNN.

Jonathan Jones, Farmington, MI

I just want to thank Jim Lehrer for the excellent coverage of the Democratic convention this evening (Monday). He and his co workers and guests did an extremely impressive job covering this event. It was very professional and quite informative.

John Eccles, Palm Bay, FL

Just a hurrah to PBS for your coverage of the Democrat National Convention. My husband and I remarked how much better it was to watch it on our PBS station — KET — than to watch on the all news all the time cable stations. You are much more civilized and professional! Thanks!

Polly & Dave Johnson, Louisville, KY

I am, as ever, impressed with the time and thought you dedicate to convention coverage — but I am truly disappointed with your 'cutaway' photos of convention delegates. Why on earth do you choose to portray the group as 80/20% black/other???? This is not an accurate portrayal of the ethnic, racial and social mix, and is unfair and almost biased in its overemphasis. We are ALL represented at the convention — show it!!!

Greenwood Village, CO

My thanks and appreciation to PBS & OPB for actually showing the Democratic convention in local prime time. I would not have been able to have seen the speeches this evening (Tuesday) on the network stations because I had a meeting to go to at 6PM local time. The commentary has been spot on, some of the speeches have been quite ordinary and unremarkable, but at least they have been aired on the people's network and we can use them to help us make our choice in November. Thank you for this. I expect the same at the Republican convention.

Tom Johnson, Junction City, OR

I just wanted to let you know that I am very grateful for the excellent coverage of the Democratic Convention. You are the only network that I have access to (had to cut back on my cable, too expensive now!) who broadcast ALL the speeches in full. The other regular networks barely allowed viewers to hear the basics of the speeches, and left out an awful lot. I don't know how we can have a fair election when most of our media has no ethics and only broadcast their own viewpoint or what their advertisers want to see and hear.

Eden Prairie, MN

White Guys Discussing Blacks and Women

I value the quality of reporting provided by The NewsHour, and have for as many years as it has been on the air. I particularly value the number of women correspondents, serious journalists whose intelligence and integrity are noteworthy. I have difficulty understanding, then, the absence of female analysts. Right now at the Democratic Convention, three historians and two political analysts speak regularly. All are men. The relationship between truth and diversity is clear: the unexamined assumptions of each of us require that we hear the voices of Others, a mechanism for leaving the echo chambers of race, class, and gender. Sexism and misogyny have been normalized in our culture. The experience of women is half of our history, yet none of us know that history because the conventional version of history taught in our public institutions treats women's history as a specialty, a minority interest.

I just watched Jim Lehrer, David Brooks and Mark Shields respond to Lilly Ledbetter's remarks (Tuesday) at the Democratic Convention. I have been struck all evening by their clueless reactions. All three of these men seem unaware that right now, as Lilly Ledbetter speaks, women make 74 cents on the male dollar. The problem is not as Jim suggested, a wedge issue. For half of the American population a reduced income by one fourth is an economic reality, the reality of sexism, and a reality that continues because of lunk-headed, self satisfied, stare-at-our-own-male-navel news coverage, and the real outrage is that this is the ONLY channel I can watch!!!

Barbara Taylor, North Aurora, IL

I really appreciate that you covered the Democratic convention so completely. It seemed to me, however, that some of your people, especially Judy Woodruff, were too often asking attendees about disagreements and disunity within the party. It will be interesting to see whether they do the same at the Republican convention, where I believe there will be much greater policy differences among attendees.

Helen Hanna, Sacramento, CA

Democratic Convention Coverage: Where were the people of color? I couldn't believe I was listening to three white guys talking about race as an issue in the race, although one of them, thank God, was President Jimmy Carter, who had important things to say. Where were the two people of color who work for you? Gwen Ifill and Ray Suarez became invisible. Where were the interviews with black Americans on this one of the most historic events in the history of African Americans? Is it only riots that gets the networks to inquire about black views?

Thulani Davis, Bloomfield, NJ

There it was, again. A herd of bulls and Gwen giving feedback relevant to the speech of Senator Hillary Clinton. Feedback??? Nope. As usual, when men take center stage subsequent to a brilliant speech by a woman, what the viewing audience observes is stark criticism. There they were, utilizing the infamous one-sided brain response of all males. There they were, trying to hold more than one thought (sometimes referred to as multi-tasking) and failing miserably. WHY??? Why must my television screen be inundated by a herd of bulls when there are so many intelligent women able to give a much more in depth report on what I observed as Senator Hillary Clinton giving her all, fighting for her country and proud to be an American? Please, at least BALANCE the feedback subsequent to so fine a speech.

Karen Jandebeur, Arcata, CA

The comments last night (Tuesday) by the 3 historical pundits following Sen. Clinton's speech left me less than amused. Sen. Clinton's job was to get her followers on board with a general reason for the support of Sen. Obama. He needs to answer for himself with specifics, not just good speech-making. I felt that the 3 commentators would have been strengthened by having someone who dealt with the history of the women's movement, perhaps even a woman — a radical thought — to have a woman comment on what was a major night for women (if not what we had hoped.) Thank goodness for Gwen Ifill! Otherwise, it was a segment totally by men with, I must say, little reference to women.

Sharon Siirola, Kingsport, TN

It seems that sexism is alive and kicking for Hillary Clinton, even in her last speech of the campaign and even on PBS. I was delighted by the excellence of both her content and her delivery, but I found myself disgusted by the REPEATED shots of Bill Clinton that interspersed your coverage. I understand that an occasional shot of a relevant person in the audience is an accepted television tradition, but would anyone like to do an analysis of HOW MANY times the camera cut away to him during her speech, compared to any other speaker in this convention? I was disappointed by the continuing double-standard that Hillary Clinton has had to deal with throughout this campaign. And I expected better of PBS.

Christine Brown, Salem, NH

Inane, Inane, Inane!!! Why in the world would you rely on all white males (with the exception of one Black historian) to be your commentators/interpreters on the DNC??? They have absolutely no insight or understanding of women's views and struggles to be involved in the political process let alone the views of African-Americans, Hispanics or others who do not look like them and have the privileged experiences they have. David Brooks and Mark Shields nightly — give me a break from this insanity, the meaningless so-called analyses. Let Gwen, Judy and Margaret do more of the analyses (that's plural) instead of the usual female reporter stuff. Come on guys — and I mean guys — my family watches you because we don't want to see the inane networks or cable guys. But you've become one and the same — almost as bad as Jim's nightly NewsHour which increasingly includes only WHITE GUYS.

Denver, CO

I tuned in to PBS for coverage of the Dem. convention because I wanted higher quality coverage than cable networks. Tonight (Tuesday) the theme of the convention was all about the historic gains of women. Why were there virtually no women offering expert commentary tonight of all nights? There was a whole group of men, but apparently having more than one woman offering an opinion at one time was too much for PBS. It's disappointing.

M. Weiner, New York, NY

I'm watching the Democratic convention on PBS and I must say I'm offended by the sight of three old, white men pontificating on what African Americans and, especially, women are thinking! How about PBS including the occasional woman and/or African American among their "experts" from time to time, especially when they are discussing such issues? I can't judge how accurately they are reading the minds of African Americans, but I assure you that when it comes to women, they don't have a clue!

Cherie, Culver City, CA

I admire much of what PBS does as far as programming. Watching the Democratic National Convention this evening (Monday) on PBS, however, it was disappointing to note that PBS did not have at least one woman as one of the round table commentators with Jim Lehrer. As a result, I switched to other major networks which did a much better job on including women in their round table analysis. I switched back to PBS a while after Michelle Obama gave her speech, and again listened to four men comment upon it. Finally a question was directed to Judy Woodruff on the floor of the convention, not to ask her for her own view about the speech but rather for her to report about how delegates reacted to the speech. PBS' lack of including women's perspectives on the round table diminishes PBS coverage of this convention. PBS doesn't get it. It is, after all, about change.

Joanne Schwebach, Altamonte Springs, FL

Missing Persons

First, I would like to say that The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer is the only television news hour that I watch, and I watch it regularly. I find this program to be as unbiased as a news program that I can find in broadcast and cable news.

For the past three nights, I have been watching the coverage on both PBS and on C-Span. I have found the coverage on PBS to be less than the usually stellar performance that I have come to expect from The NewsHour staff. First, there are been entirely too much talking on the part of the PBS staff. Fortunately, I was watching C-Span when Jim Leach from Iowa was speaking; if I had been watching PBS, I would have missed his excellent speech. Unfortunately, I was watching PBS when Governor Schweitzer gave what I understand was an excellent address; PBS only showed the last sentence or two. Fortunately, by Wednesday evening, I was able to listen to John Kerry's speech on C-Span, which was one of the best speeches I've ever heard him give. Although I treasure hearing from Mark Shields (and sometimes) David Brooks, I would much rather have heard some of the more important speeches. The comments of Shields and Brooks were both too long and too frequent. Although I look forward to Friday evenings to view Shields and Brooks, they managed, in the last three nights, to talk a lot without saying much . . .

Marion McNairy, Largo, FL

I am dismayed at the continued reporting that Barack Obama is not doing well with white working class women. It's no wonder. The media are certainly partly responsible for this. They interview predominantly African Americans about Mr. Obama. You just don't see anyone interviewing a lot of white Obama supporters — and there are many of us. NewsHour does a bit better because Shields and Brooks are regulars this week. Let's get some balance here.

Renate Coleshill, Pittsboro, NC

I would feel a whole lot better about PBS' coverage of the Democratic National Convention if you paid a little more attention to the Democratic "representatives of the common man" who are partying in Denver on the cuff of the special interests like oil companies and big business.

Lucian Laurie, King George, VA

It was a wonderful coverage of the Democratic Convention. A little less analysis would have been appreciated so we would not have missed some speakers. But lots better than major networks who carried too much normal, worthless programming and too little Convention coverage. We were happy to miss NBC's battle between Matthews and Olbermann and, as we were told, their overdone analyzing and cutting off certain Democratic Politicians who they disagree with.

Our one sore spot with the PBS coverage of the Democratic Convention and NewsHour is David Brooks. He acts decent for a while, then his Republican horns stick out when asked to comment on some Democratic guest, or in this case, Obama's speech on Thursday night. I describe him as pouty when he doesn't want to admit strong points of Democratic guests.

If Barack Obama had gotten really emotional (Brooks said he was too low key and the outdoor arena ruined the effects), Brooks would have accused him of acting like a Celebrity.

We could happily do without Brooks and his pouty Republican bias that sticks out like a VERY sore thumb. I've complained to PBS officials about Brooks, but to no avail. We prefer less bias and show of preference, and that is why we avoid Major Media News most of the time. We do NOT plan to tune in to ANY of the Republican baloney, since most middleclass and poor have been hurt far too much by their policies. We think of that administration, including Bush & McCain as sleazy, maggot infested cess pools. We'll find other sources of news and past time those four days.

Rosalyn Z., Unity, WI

I just finished watching Obama's acceptance speech on PBS. The comments of your pundits, as always, were interesting. I did get the impression that David Brooks prepared his comments before he ever heard the speech. He looked very uncomfortable and very insincere. He usually appears unflappable. I think he disappointed those of us who look toward him for an honest assessment.

Harold Levinson, San Diego, CA

I've been an avid viewer of yours and MSNBC and I've watched you for over a year ask the question reputably if Barack had the gravitas to be Commander in Chief. To our great dismay last night at the convention you had testimony by former general officers and by Iraq and Afghans veterans why Barack should be the Commander in Chief and our next President. You have yet to mention nor did you and your network cover the most important question of our time. Barack's foreign policy judgment and experience. You did America a disservice as you made your coverage about you and your colleagues by not covering the Vets input to the dialog at the convention. I say shame on you.

Clearwater, FL

And This Beat Goes on, too

I am very disgusted about your DNC Convention coverage. Can't you find better commentary besides Brooks and Shields? Both men have been on PBS too long. Also, there appears to be a lot of negative questioning. It truly shows the way PBS is biased since the Bush appointments. Bush not only has succeeded in destroying our gov't and our nation, but also Public Broadcasting. A once admired station has definitely lost its integrity. I give you a D-.

K Jadud, Columbia Station, OH

I tuned in last night (Tuesday) to watch the Democratic Convention on PBS because I trust PBS to have unbiased coverage without the arrogant talking heads of the other networks. Tonight I won't. David Brooks is not worthy of PBS's outstanding reputation. He belittled speakers calling them "banal", he scoffed and I'm sure almost rolled his eyes. When he no longer sits on the panel, I may watch again, but when I see him share the stage, I'll turn the channel.

Laura D, San Antonio, TX

How many talking heads does it take at the DNC to explain to me what I just heard from a speaker? I have watched the NewsHour for years and felt it was the best of the best. But in surfing the for-profit channels broadcasting the DNC, PBS has managed to dumb themselves down to the lowest common denominator.

Dennis Heagney, Houston, TX

I am disappointed in the convention coverage. Much as I appreciate the NewsHour, there is entirely too much commentary by Shields, Ifill, Suarez and too little actual coverage of speeches by those at the convention. The analysis by Shields and Brooks is repetitive and not informative by repetition! I would have loved to hear Kucinich, Napolitano and other minor speakers who actually represent the rank and file more closely than PBS analysts do.

Charles E. Thomas, Cascabel, AZ

When PBS Goes to the Videotape

I usually watch at least two newscasts every evening. This evening (Wednesday), I viewed the ABC World News, which opted to focus on what was happening at the Denver Convention for the entire broadcast; I saw the nomination of Barack Obama, who was ultimately acclaimed the nominee by a special motion offered by Hillary Clinton as a member of the New York delegation. When that newscast ended, I switched to PBS, as I usually do. I know that PBS likes to proclaim they are the most "trusted" people in the business. Well, I was shocked, to say the least, to see Jim Lehrer sitting at the Denver Convention and telling the audience that a roll call was now being taken to nominate Barack Obama!! This was obviously not "real time" and was on tape. The question is why? I cannot be the only audience member who was appalled to see that the PBS news was "pretending" to be live at the convention and was not in real time. It is deception. It is one thing to tell the audience that they will re-run the tape on certain portions of the roll call, but to actually be caught in this time web was ludicrous, and not worthy of any newscast.

BL Magalnick, New York, NY

I have always associated the NewsHour with the highest in integrity and the most well balanced news cast. Imagine my surprise this evening (Wednesday) when I watched the roll call at the Democratic Convention on CSPAN between 6 and 6:45, only to have the NewsHour act as though it had not yet happened throughout their news cast. I guess they did this so they could have the big announcement of the Obama's nomination at the end of the NewsHour. I could hardly believe my eyes and ears. I watched most of the Roll Call all over again. It is this kind of misleading method of reporting that leads us all to be cynical about the media.

Rochester, NY

I watched the NewsHour tonight (Wednesday), only minutes after seeing on NBC news Hillary Clinton not only cast the votes for New York (surrounded by Charles Schumer, Senior Senator and David Paterson, Governor) but also making the motion to suspend the rules and declare Barack Obama by acclamation. This news is now all over the Internet. Yet, Jim Lehrer and crew went on about events that happened earlier, suggesting that they just occurred. I thought the NewsHour happened in real time. It apparently does not and they did not have a clue that this took place. Shame on PBS for suggesting that the program originated live when it did not.

Fairport, NY

And Furthermore . . .

On the Lehrer NewsHour tonight (Tuesday) Gwen Ifill used the adjective FULSOME to describe the forthcoming speech by Hillary Clinton. I suggest that you clue Gwen about the real meaning of that term. Check any dictionary, but my American Heritage College Edition defines fulsome as "offensively excessive or insincere, offensive to the senses, loathsome, disgusting." Did Gwen really mean to say that about Hillary's expected support of Obama?

J. Tyler Resch, North Bennington, VT

Mississippi Public Broadcasting aired less of the Democratic National Convention than other stations. They ran canned fundraising stuff instead. I'll consult my notes if you need more details but this is more of the same of what I suspect to be intent on the part of Marie Antoon and the Governor of Mississippi to run Miss. Public Broadcasting into the ground. One weekend she left it off the air a few months back. Blamed technical difficulties but didn't put any message up about it. They are unreachable and they don't care.

Hattiesburg, MS

I am so disappointed in the PBS coverage of the Democratic convention. You cut speeches of people I wanted to hear, like Tammy Duckworth, Dennis Kucinich, Tom Daschle and too many more. No wonder our citizens are out of touch with our government and its leaders. The media edits what we see in order to tell us what we should think. Normally, I'm an avid fan of the NewsHour and its excellent commentators. But I would much have preferred to see all the speeches and listen to commentary and interviews in the hour following.

S Carroll, Fresno, CA

Why say 'from the Pepsi Center'? Why not 'from the Democratic Convention?' Consumerism for the sake of consuming is bad enough in our country. Big business is ruining our country because our Congress does not stand up to it. Shame on you for contributing a commercial during your coverage.

Carolee Bier, Eastport, ME

I have loved the coverage and programming presented so far on WTVI of the DNC. CNN boasts of broadcasting from the convention floor, but I switched to WTVI because I was given the opportunity to hear the speakers at the convention rather than the commentators. However, I do pray that this feedback gets filtered to the commentators by tomorrow evening, and this need to refer to Mr. Obama's sister constantly as his half-sister. You all would do well to recognize and support that nearly 60% of American families are blended, rather than broken; and until the media refrains from judging the public for its choices, and choices many in media have made, this country would be freer to build blended families that work, as it obviously has for Mr. Obama's family.

Huntersville, NC

Why do reporters only speak of Jimmy Carter as a 'peanut farmer'? They never speak of his time at the Naval Academy, or being the Captain of a submarine. Hell, he was the first to bring Sadat and Begin to the table. It's important to see his role in serving our country; not 'just some guy that builds houses.' My point is he serves our country. What an admirable quality.

Anthony Kwiatkowski, Columbus, OH

This week's mail was dominated by a continuing and rather heavy flow of e-mail from viewers reacting to the decision earlier this month by the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer not to report the news, on the Aug. 8 broadcast, of the public confession that day of an extra-marital affair by former presidential candidate John Edwards, and to last week's ombudsman column on that subject. The letters are posted below.

But first, the NewsHour also took some heat this week from some viewers who felt that the substitute commentators — Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post and Rich Lowry of the National Review — who stood in for regulars Mark Shields and David Brooks last Friday, Aug. 15, both gave Republican presidential candidate John McCain a pretty good ride in their commentary at the expense of Democratic candidate Barack Obama.

As a viewer, I had the same impression but I don't fault the panelists. The subject was reaction by the candidates to the sudden outbreak of armed conflict in Georgia and the movement of Russian troops and tanks into that small neighboring country. They were hardly alone in concluding that McCain had come out better and more forceful in the initial round of reactions, and that this type of foreign policy crisis plays to his perceived strengths. Yet both guests offered cautions and Marcus, on a couple of occasions, also pointed out the risks in McCain's position and questioned whether Americans share McCain's view that "we are all Georgians now."

I would make two other points:

One is to repeat the caution I raised in last week's column about the early coverage of the fighting in the region. Every discussion beyond just soundbites needs to remind viewers of the confusing events that precipitated this crisis, and what is known about the actions of political leaders and military forces on both sides that fueled this conflict. This is especially vital if Americans are going to make informed judgments about such events and about the reactions of the White House and the two candidates who seek to occupy it next year.

The other goes to a theme that is contained in some of the following letters; the pairing of journalists or commentators on television public affairs or news programs. It is an issue that has been raised occasionally by other viewers and it seems to me to be worth mentioning. I'm not talking here about politicians or policy specialists who turn out to be in agreement on something, or who are so diametrically opposed that they leave viewers with their heads spinning. Rather, it is about people who are in the news busines