PBS WHRO answer to my email about too much commentary

[2Design]

Very nice to get an answer and acknowledgement

____________________________

Hi Eileen,

Thanks for your comments. As you know, PBS and NPR offered full primetime
coverage and we broadcast what we received from them.

I don't disagree about the commentary. What we saw was shaped by a producing
team's understanding of 1) what was a greatest importance for the audience,
and 2) what would make good television. To my personal taste, it was "rather
too much blather." If there is an opportunity to register this opinion in a
future survey, I will do so.

In re David Brooks (your other comment), The Newshour (and PBS in general)
offers contrarian voices as part of a discussion. At WHRO when we produce
local programs, we attempt to be scrupulous in providing balance; where it
is not possible within a particular program, then throughout the entirety of
the schedule. You can be pretty sure that they will treat the upcoming
Republican convention in the same way.

I'm glad you were watching. Many others did as well. Our numbers were very
high this week, demonstrating that a sizeable number of intelligent folks
wanted more, rather than less, convention coverage. Thanks for your
comments.

Sincerely,
David Ferraro
Chief Content Officer and General Manager
WHRO
5200 Hampton Blvd.
Norfolk, VA 23508

p: 757.889.9415
f: 757.489.0007
e: [e-mail]
_______________________________________
my note
I really appreciated that you carried the coverage.
But I could have done without the commentary. I would have like for you
to show all of the convention speeches, we missed the kidsforkerry
person and that was good according to the message board I frequent.

I don't and many people don't need the news people to think for us or
shape our thoughts. It would have been good to have listened and formed
my own opinions. It reminded me of the macy's parade on tv where you see
more of the "talking head" than you do of the parade.

I do appreciate that I got to see some.
Eileen

[lil-petunia]

1. Even Brooks had to admit that

it was a very good speech, and the ones before him had great impact.

Sometimes Brooks does a tongue in cheek, and gets called on it.

Overall, I enjoyed PBS' coverage. the commentary was, at least, more highbrow than lowballing (CNN, Faux, MSNBC)

[2Design]

2. yes the other stations when they had coverage were awful

nightline and worldnews tonight were awful and turned me off completely to tv...

I had hoped not to have to deal with them at all on pbs...but there they were commenting on everything....just could have done without it and decided to express myself...

It was nice to know I was listened to. His note back to me copied about 4 people.

[gratuitous]

3. It IS a gracious answer

But copy and paste that sentence: "You can be pretty sure that they will treat the upcoming Republican convention in the same way."

Because I can hear the excuses lining up now, waiting to call roll:

"We couldn't find anyone willing to provide balance."

"Security stopped everyone at the door, and wouldn't let Al Franken in."

"The Republican National Committee rented the hall, so they have total control over the space, and who is and isn't allowed in."

I regard the first one as unlikely, but possible. The second two, however, I count as very likely, and I also count very likely the media's response to be a shrug and "Oh, well." That is, when their commentators are screened out for ideological bias, they won't fight to control their own content, and will be happy to cede to the RNC total control over what is broadcast and said.

I recommend a follow-up email addressing those points.

[2Design]

4. you are right. They may not allow dem media in the hall they

have done that with others.